On Monday 29 October 2012 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilim...@ti.com> wrote:
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores.
This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated
independently.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>
---
arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
@@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int
cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {}
*/
struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
+int arch_sd_share_power_line(void)
+{
+ return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE;
+}
Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just
gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little
systems which will be very convenient.
I agree that it would be more flexible to be able to set it for each level
Will you be addressing that in next version then ?
Regards
santosh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
