[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170331072652.GJ19929@e106622-lin>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:26:52 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
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>,
linux-kernel-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD PATCH 3/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make worker kthread be
SCHED_DEADLINE
On 30/03/17 22:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 08:50:11 AM Vikram Mulukutla wrote:
> >
> > > 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!
>
> I was not arguing for removing the kthread (quite opposite rather).
>
> My point was that *if* it is viable to rework drivers to operate in-context,
> that would be the way to go IMO instead of messing up with the kthread thing.
>
Right, I agree. Problem is that in principle we might still want to use
DEADLINE with the other platforms (MSM being a perfect example), so IMHO
we should still try to find a solution for the kthread anyway.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists