[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7657495.QyJl4BcWH5@kreacher>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:50:04 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, hugues.fruchet@...com, mchehab@...nel.org,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, alexandre.torgue@...com, pavel@....cz,
len.brown@...el.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Introduce cpufreq minimum load QoS
On Friday, April 24, 2020 1:40:55 PM CEST Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
> When start streaming from the sensor the CPU load could remain very low
> because almost all the capture pipeline is done in hardware (i.e. without
> using the CPU) and let believe to cpufreq governor that it could use lower
> frequencies. If the governor decides to use a too low frequency that
> becomes a problem when we need to acknowledge the interrupt during the
> blanking time.
> The delay to ack the interrupt and perform all the other actions before
> the next frame is very short and doesn't allow to the cpufreq governor to
> provide the required burst of power. That led to drop the half of the frames.
>
> To avoid this problem, DCMI driver informs the cpufreq governors by adding
> a cpufreq minimum load QoS resquest.
This seems to be addressing a use case that can be addressed with the help of
utilization clamps with less power overhead.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists