[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190418094833.owlobrx6x5gclvhy@queper01-lin>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:48:35 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, javi.merino@...nel.org,
edubezval@...il.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, nicolas.dechesne@...aro.org,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] thermal/cpu-cooling: Update thermal pressure in
case of a maximum frequency capping
On Tuesday 16 Apr 2019 at 15:38:41 (-0400), Thara Gopinath wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> @@ -177,6 +178,9 @@ static int cpufreq_thermal_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
>
> if (policy->max > clipped_freq)
> cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, 0, clipped_freq);
> +
> + sched_update_thermal_pressure(policy->cpus,
> + policy->max, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
Is this something we could do this CPUFreq ? Directly in
cpufreq_verify_within_limits() perhaps ?
That would re-define the 'thermal pressure' framework in a more abstract
way and make the scheduler look at 'frequency capping' events,
regardless of the reason for capping.
That would reflect user-defined frequency constraint into cpu_capacity,
in addition to the thermal stuff. I'm not sure if there is another use
case for frequency capping ?
Perhaps the Intel boost stuff could be factored in there ? That is,
at times when the boost freq is not reachable capacity_of() would appear
smaller ... Unless this wants to be reflected instantaneously ?
Thoughts ?
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists