[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201022115752.GF2611@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:57:52 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] thermal: cpufreq_cooling: Reuse effective_cpu_util()
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 01:30:01PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Many people use intel_pstate in the active mode with HWP enabled too.
We now have HWP-passive supported, afaict. So we should discourage that.
That is; I'll care less and less about people not using schedutil as
time goes on.
> Arguably, that doesn't need to compute the effective utilization, so I
> guess it is not relevant for the discussion here, but it is not
> negligible in general.
Why not? cpufreq-cooling should still be able to throttle the system by
setting HWP.Highest_Performance no?
In which case it still needs an energy estimate.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists