Re: [patch v5 11/15] sched: add power/performance balance allow flag

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 13:07 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> @@ -4053,6 +4053,8 @@ struct lb_env {
>         unsigned int            loop;
>         unsigned int            loop_break;
>         unsigned int            loop_max;
> +       int                     power_lb;  /* if power balance needed
> */
> +       int                     perf_lb;   /* if performance balance
> needed */
>  };
>  
>  /*
> @@ -5195,6 +5197,8 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
> *this_rq,
>                 .idle           = idle,
>                 .loop_break     = sched_nr_migrate_break,
>                 .cpus           = cpus,
> +               .power_lb       = 0,
> +               .perf_lb        = 1,
>         };
>  
>         cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_active_mask);

This construct allows for the possibility of power_lb=1,perf_lb=1, does
that make sense? Why not have a single balance_policy enumeration?

--
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/