[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfffdfdd5251ae7921f65d1e0360a289@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:50:11 -0700
From: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it, bristot@...hat.com,
mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, tkjos@...roid.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
andresoportus@...gle.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD PATCH 3/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make worker kthread be
SCHED_DEADLINE
> OK
>
> So there are two pieces here.
>
> One is that if we want *all* drivers to work with schedutil, we need to
> keep
> the kthread for the ones that will never be reworked (because nobody
> cares
> etc). But then perhaps the kthread implementation may be left alone
> (because
> nobody cares etc).
>
> The second one is that there are drivers operating in-context that work
> with
> schedutil already, so I don't see major obstacles to making more
> drivers work
> that way. That would be only a matter of reworking the drivers in
> question.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
There are some MSM platforms that do need a kthread and would love to
use
schedutil. This is all mainly due to the point that Vincent raised;
having
to actually wait for voltage transitions before clock switches. I can't
speak about the future, but that's the situation right now. Leaving the
kthread alone for now would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Vikram
Powered by blists - more mailing lists