On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:56:40AM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
I'm also worried about putting numbers into the DT now with all the scheduler work going on, this time next year we may well have a completely different idea of what we want to tell the scheduler. It may be that we end up being able to explicitly tell the scheduler about things like the memory architecture, or that the scheduler just gets smarter and can estimate all this stuff at runtime.
I agree. We need to sort the scheduler side out first before we commit to anything. If we are worried about including code into v8 that we are going to change later, then it is probably better to leave this part out. See my response to Mark's patch subset with the same patch for details (I didn't see this thread until afterwardsi - sorry).
My take on change is that we should be doing as good a job as we can with the scheduler we have so users get whatever we're able to deliver at the current time. Having to change in kernel code shouldn't be that big a deal, especially with something like this where the scheduler is free to ignore what it's told without churning the interface.