Re: [RFC PATCH 02/16] sched: Introduce CONFIG_SCHED_ENERGY

[Morten Rasmussen]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:39:43AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:20:27AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 07:03:16AM +0100, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 07:16:29PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > The Energy-aware scheduler implementation is guarded by
> > > > CONFIG_SCHED_ENERGY.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@xxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  arch/arm/Kconfig |    5 +++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > > index ab438cb..bfc3a85 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > 
> > > Is this going to be duplicate for each architecture enabling this? Why
> > > not make a kernel/Kconfig.energy and link to that from those
> > > architectures using it?
> > 
> > kernel/Kconfig.energy is better I think.
> 
> Well, strictly speaking I'd prefer to not have more sched CONFIG knobs.
> 
> Do we really need to have this CONFIG guarded?

How would you like to disable the energy stuff for users for whom
latency is everything?

I mean, we are adding some extra load/utilization tracking. While I
think we should do everything possible to minimize the overhead, I think
it is unrealistic to assume that it will be zero. Is a some extra 'if
(energy_enabled)' acceptable?

I'm open for other suggestions.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/