On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 08:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > 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?
Yeah, that should work be fine. -Mike -- 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/
