On Jan 20, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: ... >>> In general, how should someone tuning the compiler for this parameter >>> select a value that isn't one of (-1, m_i_q_d+1)? >> >> From my experiments it seems there are 4 reasonable values for the >> parameter: (-1) autopref turned off, (0) turned on in rank_for_schedule, >> (m_i_q_d+1) turned on everywhere. If there is a static constructor >> generated for tune tables and it is a problem to have it -- I can shrink >> acceptable values to these 3 and call it a day. >> > > You only mention 3 values: what was the fourth?
Typo. No fourth. > It might be better then > to define a set of values that represent each of these cases and only > allow the tuning parameters to select one of those. The init code then > uses that set to select how to set up the various parameters to meet > those goals. > > So something like > > ARM_SCHED_AUTOPREF_OFF > ARM_SCHED_AUTOPREF_RANK > ARM_SCHED_AUTOPREF_FULL A patch is attached. I bootstrapped it on arm-linux-gnueabihf. OK to apply? -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.linaro.org
0001-Use-enum-for-sched_autopref-tune-settings.patch
Description: Binary data
