[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151104184348.GA12825@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 10:43:50 -0800
From: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] CFS idle injection
Hello Jacob, Srinivas,
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:05:52AM -0800, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 08:58 -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
<cut>
> > > > I have two choices for this code:
> > > > 1) be part of existing powerclamp driver but require exporting some
> > > > sched APIs.
> > > > 2) be part of sched since the genernal rule applies when it comes
> > > > down to sycnhronized idle time for best power savings.
> > > >
> > > > The patches below are for #2. There is a known problem with LOW RES
> > > > timer mode that I am working on. But I am hoping to get review
> > > > earlier.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I also like #2 too. Specially now that it is not limited to a specific
> > > platform. One question though, could you still keep the cooling device
> > > support of it? In some systems, it might make sense to enable /
> > > disable idle injections based on temperature.
> > >
> > One of the key difference between 1 and 2 is that #2 is open loop
> > control, since we don't have CPU c-states info baked into scheduler. To
> > close the loop, perhaps we can export some internal APIs to the thermal
> > subsystem then the thermal governors can pick the condition to inject
> > idle.
Jacob,
I also like this direction. Having the proper APIs exported, creating a
cooling device that use them would be natural path. Then, one could
create a thermal zone plugging a governor and the idle injection cooling
device that uses the exported APIs.
> > > Was there any particular reason you dropped the cooling device
> > > support?
> > >
> > I did sysctl instead of thermal sysfs to conform the rest of the sched
> > tuning knobs. We could also have a proxy cooling device to call
> > internal APIs mentioned above.
Agreed here then.
> I think we should have cooling device as we are already using this
> cooling device. Once it pass RFC stage,I think we should consider add
> this.
Srinivas,
Yes, that seens to be a good path to follow. Thanks.
> Thanks,
> Srinivas
> >
> > Another reason is that, I intend to extend beyond thermal. Where we can
> > consolidate/sync idle work in semi-active and balanced workload.
I see.
BR,
Eduardo Valentin
--
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