Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:23:10 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RFC 6/6] ARM: sched: clear SD_SHARE_POWERLINE | From | Vincent Guittot <> |
| |
On 2 November 2012 12:00, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote: > On Monday 29 October 2012 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> >> On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores. >>>> This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated >>>> independently. >>>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>>> index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>>> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int >>>> cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {} >>>> */ >>>> struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; >>>> >>>> +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE; >>>> +} >>> >>> >>> >>> Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just >>> gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little >>> systems which will be very convenient. >> >> >> I agree that it would be more flexible to be able to set it for each level >> > Will you be addressing that in next version then ?
Hi Santosh,
yes, I will try to address this point for the next version.
Vincent
> > Regards > santosh >
| |