[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180209084039.GZ28462@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:10:39 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
On 09-02-18, 09:02, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> If I'm not wrong, at the hardware level we do have a physical rate limit (as we cannot trigger a frequency update when there is one already on-going).
> Don't know if this could somehow mitigate such effect.
Yeah, so in the worst case we will start a new freq-change right after
the previous one has finished.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists