On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 20:04 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> @@ -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? > > (power_lb == 1 && perf_lb == 1) is incorrect and impossible to have. > > (power_lb == 0 && perf_lb == 0) is possible and it means there is no any > balance on this cpu. > > So, enumeration is not enough.
Huh.. both 0 doesn't make any sense either. If there's no balancing, we shouldn't be here to begin with. -- 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/
