[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180802124511.GN2512@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:45:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: skannan@...eaurora.org
Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
chris.redpath@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
valentin.schneider@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
thara.gopinath@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
tkjos@...gle.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, smuckle@...gle.com,
adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com, pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, edubezval@...il.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, currojerez@...eup.net,
javi.merino@...nel.org, linux-pm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] sched/cpufreq: Refactor the utilization
aggregation method
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 02:33:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:35:27PM -0700, skannan@...eaurora.org wrote:
> > On 2018-07-24 05:25, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > If it's going to be a different aggregation from what's done for frequency
> > guidance, I don't see the point of having this inside schedutil. Why not
> > keep it inside the scheduler files? Also, it seems weird to use a governor's
> > code when it might not actually be in use. What if someone is using
> > ondemand, conservative, performance, etc?
>
> EAS hard relies on schedutil -- I suppose we need a check for that
> somewhere and maybe some infrastructure to pin the cpufreq governor.
Either that or disable EAS when another governor is selected.
> We're simply not going to support it for anything else.
To clarify, it makes absolutely no sense what so ever to attempt EAS
when the DVFS control is not coordinated.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists