[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161114053710.GA4178@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:07:11 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: schedutil: move slow path from workqueue to
SCHED_FIFO task
On 12-11-16, 10:57, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12 November 2016 at 07:01, Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org> wrote:
> > Hold on a sec. I thought during LPC someone (Peter?) made a point that when
> > RT thread run, we should bump the frequency to max?
>
> I wasn't there but AFAIU, this is the case we have currently for the schedutil
> governor. And we (mobile world, Linaro) want to change that it doesn't work
> that well for us. So perhaps it is just the opposite of what you stated.
>
> > So, schedutil is going
> > to trigger schedutil to bump up the frequency to max, right?
>
> How is that question related to this patch ?
Trash my last email, I failed to read yours :(
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists