Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched: idle: Add sched balance option

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

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