[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A036C2.4090403@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:39:14 -0800
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: sched-freq locking
On 01/20/2016 05:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> One comment here (which may be a bit off in which case please ignore it).
>
> You seem to be thinking that sched-freq needs to be a cpufreq governor
> and thus be handled in the same way as ondemand, for example.
That's true, I hadn't really given much thought to the alternative you
mention below.
>
> However, this doesn't have to be the case in principle. For example,
> if we have a special driver callback specifically to work with sched-freq,
> it may just use that callback and bypass (almost) all of the usual
> cpufreq mechanics. This way you may avoid worrying about the governor
> locking and related ugliness entirely.
That sounds good but I'm worried about other consequences of taking
cpufreq out of the loop. For example wouldn't we need a new way for
something like thermal to set frequency limits?
thanks,
steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists