[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190702154422.GV3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:44:22 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
quentin.perret@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 06:15:58PM +0100, Douglas RAILLARD wrote:
> Make schedutil cpufreq governor energy-aware.
>
> - patch 1 introduces a function to retrieve a frequency given a base
> frequency and an energy cost margin.
> - patch 2 links Energy Model perf_domain to sugov_policy.
> - patch 3 updates get_next_freq() to make use of the Energy Model.
>
> 1) Selecting the highest possible frequency for a given cost. Some
> platforms can have lower frequencies that are less efficient than
> higher ones, in which case they should be skipped for most purposes.
> They can still be useful to give more freedom to thermal throttling
> mechanisms, but not under normal circumstances.
> note: the EM framework will warn about such OPPs "hertz/watts ratio
> non-monotonically decreasing"
Humm, for some reason I was thinking we explicitly skipped those OPPs
and they already weren't used.
This isn't in fact so, and these first few patches make it so?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists