On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:39:43AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 11:20:27AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 07:03:16AM +0100, Henrik Austad wrote: > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 07:16:29PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > > The Energy-aware scheduler implementation is guarded by > > > > CONFIG_SCHED_ENERGY. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <[email protected]> > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 +++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig > > > > index ab438cb..bfc3a85 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig > > > > > > Is this going to be duplicate for each architecture enabling this? Why > > > not make a kernel/Kconfig.energy and link to that from those > > > architectures using it? > > > > kernel/Kconfig.energy is better I think. > > Well, strictly speaking I'd prefer to not have more sched CONFIG knobs. > > Do we really need to have this CONFIG guarded?
How would you like to disable the energy stuff for users for whom latency is everything? I mean, we are adding some extra load/utilization tracking. While I think we should do everything possible to minimize the overhead, I think it is unrealistic to assume that it will be zero. Is a some extra 'if (energy_enabled)' acceptable? I'm open for other suggestions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
