>From cee22a15052faa817e3ec8985a28154d3fabc7aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:45:40 +0530
Subject: workqueues: Introduce new flag WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT for power oriented
workqueues
Workqueues can be performance or power-oriented. Currently, most workqueues
From cee22a15052faa817e3ec8985a28154d3fabc7aa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:45:40 +0530
Subject: workqueues: Introduce new flag WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT for power oriented
workqueues
Workqueues can be performance or power-oriented.
On 27 April 2013 00:41, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> It's already too late for the upcoming merge window, but things
> generally look good to me and I'll apply the patchset once wq/for-3.11
> opens. One nitpick tho.
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:13:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> +
On 27 April 2013 00:41, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
It's already too late for the upcoming merge window, but things
generally look good to me and I'll apply the patchset once wq/for-3.11
opens. One nitpick tho.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:13:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
+
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:06:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Yeap, !WQ_UNBOUND workqueues == per-cpu workqueues.
Sigh!! You were talking about thread per cpu here... Sorry for missing
it earlier :(
>> At this time local cpu may be busy or idle
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:06:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Whatever you wrote above confused me even more :)
Heh heh, confumageddon
> This is what i had in my mind until now. Its not about per-cpu workqueue.
>
> Lets take example of system_wq. It doesn't have WQ_UNBOUND flag
Hey Tejun,
On 27 April 2013 00:41, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hey, Viresh.
>
> It's already too late for the upcoming merge window, but things
> generally look good to me and I'll apply the patchset once wq/for-3.11
> opens. One nitpick tho.
Obviously. I understand this and agree with you on it. It
Hey Tejun,
On 27 April 2013 00:41, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
Hey, Viresh.
It's already too late for the upcoming merge window, but things
generally look good to me and I'll apply the patchset once wq/for-3.11
opens. One nitpick tho.
Obviously. I understand this and agree with you on
Hello,
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:06:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Whatever you wrote above confused me even more :)
Heh heh, confumageddon
This is what i had in my mind until now. Its not about per-cpu workqueue.
Lets take example of system_wq. It doesn't have WQ_UNBOUND flag set.
On 29 April 2013 21:49, Tejun Heo t...@kernel.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:06:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Yeap, !WQ_UNBOUND workqueues == per-cpu workqueues.
Sigh!! You were talking about thread per cpu here... Sorry for missing
it earlier :(
At this time local cpu may be busy or
Hey, Viresh.
It's already too late for the upcoming merge window, but things
generally look good to me and I'll apply the patchset once wq/for-3.11
opens. One nitpick tho.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:13:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> + workqueue.power_efficient
> +
Hey, Viresh.
It's already too late for the upcoming merge window, but things
generally look good to me and I'll apply the patchset once wq/for-3.11
opens. One nitpick tho.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:13:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
+ workqueue.power_efficient
+
On 25 April 2013 16:43, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 25 April 2013 09:00, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>> Yes. That was my intention - preventing a prompt on existing defconfigs and
>>> there by maintaining current behavior.
>>
>> Hmm... Following
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25 April 2013 09:00, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>> Yes. That was my intention - preventing a prompt on existing defconfigs and
>> there by maintaining current behavior.
>
> Hmm... Following is the version after fixing all problems you reported.
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 25 April 2013 09:00, Amit Kucheria amit.kuche...@linaro.org wrote:
Yes. That was my intention - preventing a prompt on existing defconfigs and
there by maintaining current behavior.
Hmm... Following is the version
On 25 April 2013 16:43, Amit Kucheria amit.kuche...@linaro.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 25 April 2013 09:00, Amit Kucheria amit.kuche...@linaro.org wrote:
Yes. That was my intention - preventing a prompt on existing defconfigs and
On 25 April 2013 09:00, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> Yes. That was my intention - preventing a prompt on existing defconfigs and
> there by maintaining current behavior.
Hmm... Following is the version after fixing all problems you reported.
@Tejun: I have attached it too as gmail's copy-paste may
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:57:09PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> If this line is not present i believe it is 'default n' only. So, i skipped
> it.
I think the difference is that when you configure the option for the
first time - ie. building kernel with .config used for an older kernel
- that it
On 24 April 2013 17:50, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> +config WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT
>> + bool "Workqueue allocated as UNBOUND (by default) for power
>> efficiency"
>> + depends on PM
>
> default n
If this line is not present i believe
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Workqueues can be performance or power oriented. For performance we may want
> to
> keep them running on a single cpu, so that it remains cache hot. For power we
> can give scheduler the liberty to choose target cpu for running work handler.
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
Workqueues can be performance or power oriented. For performance we may want
to
keep them running on a single cpu, so that it remains cache hot. For power we
can give scheduler the liberty to choose target cpu for
On 24 April 2013 17:50, Amit Kucheria amit.kuche...@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
+config WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT
+ bool Workqueue allocated as UNBOUND (by default) for power
efficiency
+ depends on PM
default n
If
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:57:09PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
If this line is not present i believe it is 'default n' only. So, i skipped
it.
I think the difference is that when you configure the option for the
first time - ie. building kernel with .config used for an older kernel
- that it
On 25 April 2013 09:00, Amit Kucheria amit.kuche...@linaro.org wrote:
Yes. That was my intention - preventing a prompt on existing defconfigs and
there by maintaining current behavior.
Hmm... Following is the version after fixing all problems you reported.
@Tejun: I have attached it too as
24 matches
Mail list logo
