[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150324135613.GR23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:56:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, yuyang.du@...el.com,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mturquette@...aro.org, nico@...aro.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, juri.lelli@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFCv3 PATCH 38/48] sched: Infrastructure to query if load
balancing is energy-aware
On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 06:31:15PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>
> Energy-aware load balancing should only happen if the ENERGY_AWARE feature
> is turned on and the sched domain on which the load balancing is performed
> on contains energy data.
> There is also a need during a load balance action to be able to query if we
> should continue to load balance energy-aware or if we reached the tipping
> point which forces us to fall back to the conventional load balancing
> functionality.
> @@ -7348,6 +7349,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> .cpus = cpus,
> .fbq_type = all,
> .tasks = LIST_HEAD_INIT(env.tasks),
> + .use_ea = (energy_aware() && sd->groups->sge) ? true : false,
fwiw, no tipping point in that logic.
--
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