[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <535E28D0.7050502@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:09:20 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: idle: Add sched balance option
On 04/25/2014 08:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> As the sysctl is some kind of ABI, I would like to make sure we reach a
>> consensus and discuss a bit about that.
>
> We could make it a sysfs file, like /sys/power/state, which when read
> provides the words it takes.
>
> That is more flexible than a numeric sysctl for which we have to keep an
> enumeration.
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a
scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more options will follow.
I am wondering if we shouldn't create a new cgroup for 'energy' and put
everything in there. So we will have more flexibility for extension and
we will be able to create a group of tasks for performance and a group
of tasks for energy saving.
Does it make sense ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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