[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140106163341.GO31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 17:33:41 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, pjt@...gle.com,
Morten.Rasmussen@....com, cmetcalf@...era.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
alex.shi@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, rjw@...k.pl,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, corbet@....net, tglx@...utronix.de,
len.brown@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, james.hogan@...tec.com,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
Dietmar.Eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:30:33AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> The design looks good to me. In my opinion information like P-states and
> C-states dependency can be kept separate from the topology levels, it
> might get too complicated unless the information is tightly coupled to
> the topology.
I'm not entirely convinced we can keep them separated, the moment we
have multiple CPUs sharing a P or C state we need somewhere to manage
the shared state and the domain tree seems like the most natural place
for this.
Now it might well be both P and C states operate at 'natural' domains
which we already have so it might be 'easy'.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists