From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964866Ab3BTPWl (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:22:41 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:33730 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964852Ab3BTPWi (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:22:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:22:34 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Alex Shi Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com Subject: Re: [patch v5 11/15] sched: add power/performance balance allow flag Message-ID: <20130220152234.GE16775@pd.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Alex Shi , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com References: <1361164062-20111-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1361164062-20111-12-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130220121256.GD16775@pd.tnic> <5124DBA3.20605@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5124DBA3.20605@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:20:19PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > >> index 2e8131d..0047856 100644 > >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > >> @@ -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 */ > > > > Those look like they're used like simple boolean flags. Why not make > > them such, i.e. bitfields? See struct perf_event_attr for an example. > > there are 11 long words in struct lb_env now. use boolean or bitfields > can't save much space. Now now maybe. Btw, there's a ->flags variable there which simply cries to get another LBF_* flag or two. This way you don't add any new members at all and don't enlarge the struct. > and not use conveniently. Make yourself accessor functions or whatever. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --