[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160331122445.GJ3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:24:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/7][Resend] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on
scheduler utilization data
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:17:44AM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> The scenario I'm contemplating is that while a CPU-intensive task is
> running a thermal interrupt goes off. The driver for this thermal
> interrupt responds by capping fmax. If this happens just after the tick,
> it seems possible that we could wait a full tick before changing the
> frequency. Given a 10ms tick it could be rather annoying for thermal
> management algorithms on some platforms (I'm familiar with a few).
So I'm blissfully unaware of all the thermal stuffs we have; but it
looks like its somehow bolten onto cpufreq without feedback.
The thing I worry about is thermal scaling the CPU back past where RT/DL
tasks can still complete in time. It should not be able to do that, or
rather, missing deadlines because thermal is about as useful as
rebooting the device.
I guess I'm saying is, the whole cpufreq/thermal 'interface' needs work
anyhow.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists