Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 06:22:17PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> I'm not sure if the idea to create a dedicated sched_domain level for every
> topology flag representing a specific functionality will scale. From the
> perspective of energy-aware scheduling we need e.g. energy costs (P and C
> state) which can only be populated towards the scheduler via an additional
> sub-struct and additional function arch_sd_energy() like depicted in
> Morten's email:
> 
> [2] lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/14/102

That lkml.org link is actually not working for me (blank page -- maybe
lkml.org is on the blink again).

That said, I yet have to sit down and think about the P state stuff, but
I was thinking we need some rudimentary domain support for that.

For instance, the big-little thingies seem share their P state per
cluster, so we need a domain at that level to hang some state off of --
which we actually have in this case. But we need to ensure we do have
it -- somehow.

--
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/