[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151105101218.GB3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:12:18 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
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>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.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
People, trim your emails!
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 08:58:30AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > 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.
_yet_, there's people working on that. The whole power aware scheduling
stuff needs that.
> 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.
I would much rather that all be part of the power aware stuff, such that
the scheduler itself is aware of thermal limits and can migrate load
away if needed.
--
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