[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180410115457.GB4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:54:57 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] sched: Introduce energy models of CPUs
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:36:03PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> + /*
> + * Build the energy model of one CPU, and link it to all CPUs
> + * in its frequency domain. This should be correct as long as
> + * they share the same micro-architecture.
> + */
Aside from the whole PM_OPP question; you should assert that assumption.
Put an explicit check for the uarch in and FAIL the init if that isn't
met.
I don't think it makes _ANY_ kind of sense to share a frequency domain
across uarchs and we should be very clear we're not going to support
anything like that.
I know DynamiQ strictly speaking allows that, but since it's insane, we
should consider that a bug in DynamiQ.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists