Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:09:20 +0200 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: idle: Add sched balance option |
| |
On 04/25/2014 08:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> As the sysctl is some kind of ABI, I would like to make sure we reach a >> consensus and discuss a bit about that. > > We could make it a sysfs file, like /sys/power/state, which when read > provides the words it takes. > > That is more flexible than a numeric sysctl for which we have to keep an > enumeration.
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more options will follow.
I am wondering if we shouldn't create a new cgroup for 'energy' and put everything in there. So we will have more flexibility for extension and we will be able to create a group of tasks for performance and a group of tasks for energy saving.
Does it make sense ?
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |