On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 11:06 +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > Current scheduler behavior is just consider the for larger performance > of system. So it try to spread tasks on more cpu sockets and cpu cores > > To adding the consideration of power awareness, the patchset adds > 2 kinds of scheduler policy: powersaving and balance. They will use > runnable load util in scheduler balancing. The current scheduling is taken > as performance policy. > > performance: the current scheduling behaviour, try to spread tasks > on more CPU sockets or cores. performance oriented. > powersaving: will pack tasks into few sched group until all LCPU in the > group is full, power oriented. > balance : will pack tasks into few sched group until group_capacity > numbers CPU is full, balance between performance and > powersaving.
_WHY_ do you start out with so much choice? If your power policy is so abysmally poor on performance that you already know you need a 3rd policy to keep people happy, maybe you're doing something wrong? > +#define SCHED_POLICY_PERFORMANCE (0x1) > +#define SCHED_POLICY_POWERSAVING (0x2) > +#define SCHED_POLICY_BALANCE (0x4) > + > +extern int __read_mostly sched_policy; I'd much prefer: sched_balance_policy. Scheduler policy is a concept already well defined by posix and we don't need it to mean two completely different things. -- 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/
