[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160831143907.GX10121@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:39:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: cpufreq: use rt_avg as estimate of required
RT CPU capacity
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:40:48AM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> A policy of going to fmax on any RT activity will be detrimental
> for power on many platforms. Often RT accounts for only a small amount
> of CPU activity so sending the CPU frequency to fmax is overkill. Worse
> still, some platforms may not be able to even complete the CPU frequency
> change before the RT activity has already completed.
>
> Cpufreq governors have not treated RT activity this way in the past so
> it is not part of the expected semantics of the RT scheduling class. The
> DL class offers guarantees about task completion and could be used for
> this purpose.
Not entirely true. People have simply disabled cpufreq because of this.
Yes, RR/FIFO are a pain, but they should still be deterministic, and
variable cpufreq destroys that.
I realize that the fmax thing is annoying, but I'm not seeing how rt_avg
is much better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists