On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike! >> I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the >> detailed concern of you on 'both performance profiles with either >> metric'? Could you like to give your preferred solutions? > > Hm.. I'll try rephrasing. Any power saving gain will of necessity be > paid for in latency currency. I don't have a solution other than make a > button, let the user decide whether history influences fast path task > placement or not. Any other decision maker will get it wrong.
Um, if no other objection, I'd like to move the runnable load only used for power friendly policy -- for this patchset, they are 'powersaving' and 'balance', Can I? > > -Mike > -- Thanks Alex -- 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/
