On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 14:37 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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.
Also, why is this in the lb_env at all, shouldn't we simply use the global sched_balance_policy all over the place? Its not like we want to change power/perf on a finer granularity. -- 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/
