On 04/25/2014 08:43 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 07:01:23PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
As the sysctl is some kind of ABI, I would like to make sure we reach a consensus and discuss a bit about that.
We could make it a sysfs file, like /sys/power/state, which when read provides the words it takes.
That is more flexible than a numeric sysctl for which we have to keep an enumeration.
I agree a numerical value is not flexible. But it sounds weird to put a scheduler option in the sysfs and maybe more options will follow.
I am wondering if we shouldn't create a new cgroup for 'energy' and put everything in there. So we will have more flexibility for extension and we will be able to create a group of tasks for performance and a group of tasks for energy saving.
Does it make sense ?