[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150812103320.GW19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 12:33:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>,
yuyang.du@...el.com, mturquette@...libre.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>, sgurrappadi@...dia.com,
pang.xunlei@....com.cn, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFCv5 PATCH 18/46] arm: topology: Define TC2 energy and provide
it to the scheduler
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:24:01PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> +static struct capacity_state cap_states_cluster_a7[] = {
> + /* Cluster only power */
> + { .cap = 150, .power = 2967, }, /* 350 MHz */
> + { .cap = 172, .power = 2792, }, /* 400 MHz */
> + { .cap = 215, .power = 2810, }, /* 500 MHz */
> + { .cap = 258, .power = 2815, }, /* 600 MHz */
> + { .cap = 301, .power = 2919, }, /* 700 MHz */
> + { .cap = 344, .power = 2847, }, /* 800 MHz */
> + { .cap = 387, .power = 3917, }, /* 900 MHz */
> + { .cap = 430, .power = 4905, }, /* 1000 MHz */
> + };
So can I suggest a SCHED_DEBUG validation of the data provided?
Given the above table, it _never_ makes sense to run at .cap=150, it
equally also doesn't make sense to run at .cap = 301.
So please add a SCHED_DEBUG test on domain creation that validates that
not only is the .cap monotonically increasing, but the .power is too.
--
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