lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Scheduler idle notifiers and users

On 02/11/2012 06:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Saravana Kannan<skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>> When you say accommodate all hardware, does it mean we will
>> keep around CPUfreq and allow attempts at improving it? Or we
>> will completely move to scheduler based CPU freq scaling, but
>> won't try to force atomicity? Say, may be queue up a
>> notification to a CPU driver to scale up the frequency as soon
>> as it can?
>
> I don't think we should (or even could) force atomicity - we
> adapt to whatever the hardware can do.

May be I misread the emails from Peter and you, but it sounded like the
idea being proposed was to directly do a freq change from the scheduler.
That would force the freq change API to be atomic (if it can be
implemented is another issue). That's what I was referring to when I
loosely used the terms "force atomicity".

> But the design should be directed at systems where frequency
> changes can be done in a reasonably fast manner. That is what he
> future is - any change we initiate today takes years to reach
> actual products/systems.

As long as the new design doesn't treat archs needing schedulable
context to set freq as a second class citizen, I think we would all be
happy. Because it's not just a matter of it being old hardware.
Sometimes the decision to let the SW do the voltage scaling also comes
down to HW cost. Considering Linux runs on such a wide set of archs, I
think we shouldn't treat the need for schedulable context for freq
setting as "broken" or "not sane".


>> IMHO, I think the problem with CPUfreq and its dynamic
>> governors today is that they do a timer based sampling of the
>> CPU load instead of getting some hints from the scheduler when
>> the scheduler knows that the load average is quite high.
>
> Yes - that is one of the "frequency changes are slow"
> assumptions - which is wrong.

Thanks,
Saravana

--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-15 00:23    [W:0.100 / U:0.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site