[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags
On 17-12-17, 01:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> We can do that in principle, but why should it return early? Maybe it's
> a good time to update things, incidentally?
> I actually don't like the SCHED_CPUFRREQ_CLEAR flag *concept* as it is very
> much specific to schedutil and blatantly ignores everybody else.
> Alternatively, you could add two flags for clearing SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT and
> SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL that could just be ingored entirely by intel_pstate.
> So, why don't you make SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT and SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL "sticky" until,
> say, SCHED_CPUFREQ_NO_RT and SCHED_CPUFREQ_NO_DL are passed, respectively?

I didn't like adding scheduling class specific flags, and wanted the code to
treat all of them in the same way. And then the governors can make a policy over
that, on what to ignore and what not to. For example with the current patchset,
the governors can know when nothing else is queued on a CPU and CPU is going to
get into idle loop. They can choose to (or not to) do something in that case.

I just thought that writing consistent (i.e. no special code) code across all
classes would be better.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-18 06:00    [W:0.160 / U:1.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site