[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201022122949.GW2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:29:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...ia.fr>,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: default cpufreq gov, was: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 02:19:29PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much
> > intel_pstate/active mode.
>
> I agree in general, but IMO it would not be prudent to do that without making
> schedutil provide the same level of performance in all of the relevant use
> cases.
Agreed; I though to have understood we were there already.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists