lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 02/16] sched: Introduce CONFIG_SCHED_ENERGY
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:39:43AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:20:27AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 07:03:16AM +0100, Henrik Austad wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 07:16:29PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > > The Energy-aware scheduler implementation is guarded by
> > > > CONFIG_SCHED_ENERGY.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 +++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > > index ab438cb..bfc3a85 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > >
> > > Is this going to be duplicate for each architecture enabling this? Why
> > > not make a kernel/Kconfig.energy and link to that from those
> > > architectures using it?
> >
> > kernel/Kconfig.energy is better I think.
>
> Well, strictly speaking I'd prefer to not have more sched CONFIG knobs.
>
> Do we really need to have this CONFIG guarded?

How would you like to disable the energy stuff for users for whom
latency is everything?

I mean, we are adding some extra load/utilization tracking. While I
think we should do everything possible to minimize the overhead, I think
it is unrealistic to assume that it will be zero. Is a some extra 'if
(energy_enabled)' acceptable?

I'm open for other suggestions.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-10 12:41    [W:0.333 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site