| Message ID | 1349595838-31274-7-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: > The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores. > This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated > independently. > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {} > */ > struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; > > +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void) > +{ > + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE; > +} Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little systems which will be very convenient. Regards Santosh
On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote: > On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> >> The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores. >> This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated >> independently. >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >> index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int >> cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {} >> */ >> struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; >> >> +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void) >> +{ >> + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE; >> +} > > > Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just > gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little > systems which will be very convenient. I agree that it would be more flexible to be able to set it for each level > > Regards > Santosh > > > > >
On Monday 29 October 2012 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote: >> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> >>> The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores. >>> This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated >>> independently. >>> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++ >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>> index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int >>> cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {} >>> */ >>> struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; >>> >>> +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void) >>> +{ >>> + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE; >>> +} >> >> >> Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just >> gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little >> systems which will be very convenient. > > I agree that it would be more flexible to be able to set it for each level > Will you be addressing that in next version then ? Regards santosh
On 2 November 2012 12:00, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> wrote: > On Monday 29 October 2012 06:58 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> >> On 24 October 2012 17:21, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores. >>>> This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated >>>> independently. >>>> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>>> index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >>>> @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int >>>> cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {} >>>> */ >>>> struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; >>>> >>>> +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void) >>>> +{ >>>> + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE; >>>> +} >>> >>> >>> >>> Making this selection of policy based on sched domain will better. Just >>> gives the flexibility to choose a separate scheme for big and little >>> systems which will be very convenient. >> >> >> I agree that it would be more flexible to be able to set it for each level >> > Will you be addressing that in next version then ? Hi Santosh, yes, I will try to address this point for the next version. Vincent > > Regards > santosh >
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c index 26c12c6..00511d0 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c @@ -226,6 +226,11 @@ static inline void update_cpu_power(unsigned int cpuid, unsigned int mpidr) {} */ struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS]; +int arch_sd_share_power_line(void) +{ + return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE; +} + const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu) { return &cpu_topology[cpu].core_sibling;
The ARM platforms take advantage of packing small tasks on few cores. This is true even when the cores of a cluster can't be powergated independantly. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)