[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171130160627.GJ9903@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:06:27 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] cpufreq: schedutil: relax rate-limiting while
running RT/DL tasks
On 30/11/17 15:54, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 30-Nov 14:36, Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > I wonder if we would also need some way to trigger a back to back update
> > as soon as a currently running one finishes and an RT/DL task asked for
> > an update (without waiting for the next tick).
>
> Good point, I think that would actually be an interesting
> optimization. We already discussed that in the past, but refrained by
> adding more on top of this already "substantial" set of changes.
>
> Can we think about that once we decided about some patches of this
> series?
Definitely yes for me. One bit at a time. :)
Best,
Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists