lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags
    Date
    On Saturday, December 16, 2017 5:47:07 PM CET Viresh Kumar wrote:
    > On 16 December 2017 at 22:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
    >
    > >> +#define SCHED_CPUFREQ_CLEAR (1U << 31)
    > >
    > > I'm not thrilled by this, because schedutil is not the only user of
    > > the flags and it's totally unclear what the other user(s) should do
    > > when this is set.
    >
    > intel-pstate is the only other user of the IOWAIT flag, right? In order
    > not to change the current behavior, we can update that to return early
    > for now ?

    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?

    Thanks,
    Rafael

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-12-17 01:20    [W:2.758 / U:0.592 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site