On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 9 April 2013 15:23, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Later one (Power oriented WQ) can be achieved if the workqueue is allocated with >> >> Rephrase as "Power-efficient workqueues can be achieved..." > > Ok. > >>> WQ_UNBOUND flag. To make this compile time configurable with boot time override >>> this patch adds in another flag WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT. This will be converted to >>> WQ_UNBOUND (on wq allocation) if CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT is enabled and >>> bootargs contain workqueue.power_efficient=1. It is unused otherwise and normal >>> behavior of WQ without this flag is expected. >> >> Addition of a new flag seems a bit excessive IMHO. Why can't we just >> set the UNBOUND flag when the wq_power_efficient module param is set? >> >> It would make the patch a lot simpler too. > > But how will we know if the user of wq wants to save power or not? He must > give some flag which is only used when power saving is enabled. We can't > set WQ_UNBOUND for all wqs. You have the Kconfig option + the module param for that. You don't need a flag. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
