| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140428102819.GG27561@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:28:19 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.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 Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:09:20PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > 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 ? The old knobs used to live here: -What: /sys/devices/system/cpu/sched_mc_power_savings - /sys/devices/system/cpu/sched_smt_power_savings Not entirely sure that's a fine place, but it has precedent. -- 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