[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240205085444.2owfuruucm26txt3@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 14:24:44 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: lizhe <sensor1010@....com>
Cc: vincent.guittot@...aro.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq/schedutil: When updating limitations, frequency
modulation interval not become invalid.
On 05-02-24, 16:33, lizhe wrote:
> HI:
> I think not.
> It will cause the following changes:
> limits_changed in sugov_limit() is set to true.
> This will cause the modulation interval to be invalid.
> The system modulation will ignore the modulation interval.
> A modulation request will be initiated immediately.
>
>
> As shown below :
> sugov_should_update_freq(...)
> {
> if (unlikely(sg_policy->limits_changed)) {
> ....
> return true;
> }
> }
>
> Repeatedly setting the schedutil modulation policy causes the modulation interval to be invalid.
> Why is this necessary ?
This is the penalty being paid to keep the interface simple and consistent.
Playing with sysfs can do such minor things.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists