[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1405192259420.17310@knanqh.ubzr>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:05:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] sched: final power vs capacity cleanup
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:57:10PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > It is better not to think about compute capacity as being equivalent to
> > > "CPU power". The upcoming "power aware" scheduler may create confusion
> > > with the notion of energy consumption if "power" is used too liberally.
> > >
> > > This contains the architecture visible changes. Incidentally, only ARM
> > > takes advantage of the available pow^H^H^Hcapacity scaling hooks and
> > > therefore those changes outside kernel/sched/ are confined to one ARM
> > > specific file. The default arch_scale_smt_power() hook is not overridden
> > > by anyone.
> > >
> > > Replacements are as follows:
> > >
> > > arch_scale_freq_power --> arch_scale_freq_capacity
> > > arch_scale_smt_power --> arch_scale_smt_capacity
> > > SCHED_POWER_SCALE --> SCHED_CAPA_SCALE
> > > SCHED_POWER_SHIFT --> SCHED_POWER_SHIFT
> >
> > The patch seems to actually make that CAPA_SHIFT
>
> Huh... right, of course.
>
> > > The local usage of "power" in arch/arm/kernel/topology.c is also changed
> > > to "capacity" as appropriate.
> >
> > For some reason every time I read: 'capa' I think of some south American
> > monster -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra, I'm not at all sure
> > why my brain links them.
>
> :-)
>
> capa != paca
>
> I chose that not to make this much longer than "POWER", and since there
> are already "LOAD" related constants, I thought there was some symetry
> to another 4-letter identifier. Do you have other suggestions?
I understand that Vincent is inclined to rebase his future work on top
of this renaming.
Should I repost or you're happy to fix the commit log manually?
Any other concerns I should address?
Nicolas
--
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