On Thu, 15 May 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 04:57:10PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > It is better not to think about compute capacity as being equivalent to > > > "CPU power". The upcoming "power aware" scheduler may create confusion > > > with the notion of energy consumption if "power" is used too liberally. > > > > > > This contains the architecture visible changes. Incidentally, only ARM > > > takes advantage of the available pow^H^H^Hcapacity scaling hooks and > > > therefore those changes outside kernel/sched/ are confined to one ARM > > > specific file. The default arch_scale_smt_power() hook is not overridden > > > by anyone. > > > > > > Replacements are as follows: > > > > > > arch_scale_freq_power --> arch_scale_freq_capacity > > > arch_scale_smt_power --> arch_scale_smt_capacity > > > SCHED_POWER_SCALE --> SCHED_CAPA_SCALE > > > SCHED_POWER_SHIFT --> SCHED_POWER_SHIFT > > > > The patch seems to actually make that CAPA_SHIFT > > Huh... right, of course. > > > > The local usage of "power" in arch/arm/kernel/topology.c is also changed > > > to "capacity" as appropriate. > > > > For some reason every time I read: 'capa' I think of some south American > > monster -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chupacabra, I'm not at all sure > > why my brain links them. > > :-) > > capa != paca > > I chose that not to make this much longer than "POWER", and since there > are already "LOAD" related constants, I thought there was some symetry > to another 4-letter identifier. Do you have other suggestions?
I understand that Vincent is inclined to rebase his future work on top of this renaming. Should I repost or you're happy to fix the commit log manually? Any other concerns I should address? Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
