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

[Alex Shi]

On 02/20/2013 05:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?

(power_lb == 1 && perf_lb == 1) is incorrect and impossible to have.

(power_lb == 0 && perf_lb == 0) is possible and it means there is no any
balance on this cpu.

So, enumeration is not enough.
> 


-- 
Thanks
    Alex
--
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/