[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141028142749.GO3219@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 15:27:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, riel@...hat.com, efault@....de,
nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
patches@...aro.org, tuukka.tikkanen@...aro.org,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 7/7] sched: energy_model: simple cpu frequency
scaling policy
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:07:31PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Unlike legacy CPUfreq governors, this policy does not implement its own
> logic loop (such as a workqueue triggered by a timer), but instead uses
> an event-driven design. Frequency is evaluated by entering
> {en,de}queue_task_fair and then a kthread is woken from
> run_rebalance_domains which scales cpu frequency based on the latest
> evaluation.
Also note that we probably want to extend the governor to include the
other sched classes, deadline for example is a good candidate to include
as it already explicitly provides utilization requirements from which
you can compute a hard minimum frequency, below which the task set is
unschedulable.
fifo/rr are far harder to do, since for them we don't have anything
useful, the best we can do I suppose is some statistical over
provisioning but no guarantees.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists