| Subject | Re: [patch v5 11/15] sched: add power/performance balance allow flag | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:48:01 +0100 |
| |
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?
|