On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 13:07 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> @@ -4053,6 +4053,8 @@ struct lb_env {
> unsigned int loop;
> unsigned int loop_break;
> unsigned int loop_max;
> + int power_lb; /* if power balance needed
> */
> + int perf_lb; /* if performance balance
> needed */
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -5195,6 +5197,8 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq
> *this_rq,
> .idle = idle,
> .loop_break = sched_nr_migrate_break,
> .cpus = cpus,
> + .power_lb = 0,
> + .perf_lb = 1,
> };
>
> cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_active_mask);
This construct allows for the possibility of power_lb=1,perf_lb=1, does
that make sense? Why not have a single balance_policy enumeration?
--
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/
