From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuyang Du Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/16 v3] Init Workload Consolidation flags in sched_domain Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 02:09:54 +0800 Message-ID: <20140610180954.GB5487@intel.com> References: <1401431772-14320-1-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <1401431772-14320-8-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <20140603121416.GH30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5395F541.60604@arm.com> <20140609211820.GA5361@intel.com> <5396F166.1030401@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:2825 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752916AbaFKCNl (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 22:13:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5396F166.1030401@arm.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Dietmar Eggemann Cc: Peter Zijlstra , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:52:06PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: Hi Dietmar, > Not in this sense but there is no functionality in the scheduler right > now to check constantly if an sd flag has been set/unset via sysctl. Sorry, I still don't understand. There are many "if (sd->flags & SD_XXX)" in fair.c. What does it mean to you? Probably you mean the SD_XX should be fixed in init and never changed via sysctl thereafter. Ah... I don't know about this... Overall, I think I should come up with a better way to implement the SD_WORKLOAD_CONSOLIDATION policy (enabled or disabled) in load balancing (as is also pointed out by PeterZ). But I just don't see the current implementation is any particular different than any other SD_XX's. Have you tried it on your platform? Thanks a lot, Yuyang