Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [patch v4 09/18] sched: add sched_policies in kernel | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:36:01 +0100 |
| |
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.
|  |