[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5577D7DB.5020802@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:23:23 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...nel.org
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
riel@...hat.com, efault@....de, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
juri.lelli@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org, abelvesa@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 4/4] sched: cpufreq_cfs: pelt-based cpu frequency
scaling
On 05/12/2015 10:13 AM, Michael Turquette wrote:
> This governor is event-driven. There is no polling loop to check cpu
> idle time nor any other method which is unsynchronized with the
> scheduler. The entry points for this policy are in fair.c:
> enqueue_task_fair, dequeue_task_fair and task_tick_fair.
>
> This policy is implemented using the cpufreq governor interface for two
> main reasons:
>
> 1) re-using the cpufreq machine drivers without using the governor
> interface is hard.
>
> 2) using the cpufreq interface allows us to switch between the
> scheduler-driven policy and legacy cpufreq governors such as ondemand at
> run-time. This is very useful for comparative testing and tuning.
Hi, Mike,
Did you have some testing data with your patch?
--
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