lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure
On 28-01-19, 14:04, Qais Yousef wrote:
> But we have no way to enforce this, no? I'm thinking if frequency can be
> constrained in PM QoS framework, then we will end up with some drivers that
> think it's a good idea to use it and potentially end up breaking this "should
> not work against schedutil and similar".
>
> Or did I miss something?
>
> My point is that if we introduce something too generic we might end up
> encouraging more users and end up with a complex set of rules/interactions and
> lose some determinism. But I could be reading too much into it :-)

People are free to use notifiers today as well and there is nobody
stopping them. A new framework/layer may actually make them more
accountable as we can easily record which all entities have requested
to impose a freq-limit on CPUs.

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-30 06:28    [W:0.076 / U:1.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site