On 02/20/2013 05:48 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
(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.
>
--
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/
