[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151118061026.03a28616@yairi>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:10:26 -0800
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:36:22 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > This patch introduces a scheduler based idle injection method, it
> > works by blocking CFS runqueue synchronously and periodically. The
> > actions on all online CPUs are orchestrated by per CPU hrtimers.
> >
> > Two sysctl knobs are given to the userspace for selecting the
> > percentage of idle time as well as the forced idle duration for each
> > idle period injected.
>
> What's the purpose of these knobs? Just testing, or will some
> user-space daemon set them dynamically?
>
yes, it is to be used by userspace daemon such as thermal daemon.
Though there are interests from in kernel thermal governor but that is
another story.
> I also think that naming it 'idle injection' is pretty euphemistic:
> this is forced idling, right? So why not name it CFS_FORCED_IDLE?
yes, it is forced idle. sounds good.
--
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