On 01/23/2013 09:47 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > 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.
Thanks for comments! :) > > -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/
