[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151215154651.GK16007@e106622-lin>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 15:46:51 +0000
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, sudeep.holla@....com,
lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity
bindings
On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:36PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > I really don't want to see a table of magic numbers in the kernel.
> >
> > Right, there's pitfalls there too although not being part of an ABI
> > does make them more manageable.
>
> I think that people are very likely to treat them exactly like an ABI,
> w.r.t. any regressions in performance that result from their addition,
> modification, or removal. That becomes really horrible when new CPUs
> appear.
>
Yeah, and I guess the path towards out of three patches changing this
values for a specifica platform (without exposing the same changes
upstream) is not too far away.
> > One thing it's probably helpful to establish here is how much the
> > specific numbers are going to matter in the grand scheme of things. If
> > the specific numbers *are* super important then nobody is going to want
> > to touch them as they'll be prone to getting tweaked. If instead the
> > numbers just need to be ballpark accurate so the scheduler starts off in
> > roughly the right place and the specific numbers don't matter it's a lot
> > easier and having a table in the kernel until we think of something
> > better (if that ever happens) gets a lot easier.
>
> I agree that we first need to figure out the importance of these
> numbers. I disagree that our first step should be to add a table.
>
My take is that ballpark is fine, but it's a per platform/configuration
ballpark that we need. Not a per core-type one.
> > My expectation is that we just need good enough, not perfect, and that
> > seems to match what Juri is saying about the expectation that most of
> > the fine tuning is done via other knobs.
>
> My expectation is that if a ballpark figure is good enough, it should be
> possible to implement something trivial like bogomips / loop_per_jiffy
> calculation.
>
I didn't really followed that, so I might be wrong here, but isn't
already happened a discussion about how we want/like to stop exposing
bogomips info or rely on it for anything but in kernel delay loops?
Thanks,
- Juri
--
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