Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 May 2016 02:24:19 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5] cpufreq: schedutil: do not update rate limit ts when freq is unchanged | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> |
| |
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:15:52PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> But anyway this change again seems to be an optimization that might be >> done later to me. >> >> I guess there are many things that might be optimized in schedutil, >> but I'd prefer to address one item at a time, maybe going after the >> ones that appear most relevant first? > > Calling the last two patches in this series optimizations is a stretch > IMO. Issuing frequency change requests that result in the same > target-supported frequency is clearly unnecessary and ends up delaying > more urgent frequency changes, which I think is more like a bug.
The [4/5] is pulling stuff where it doesn't belong. Simple as that. Frequency tables don't belong in schedutil, so don't pull them in there.
If you want to do that cleanly, add a call to the driver that will tell you what frequency would be selected by it if it were given a particular target.
I actually do agree with the direction of it and the [5/5], but I don't like cutting corners. :-)
> These patches are also needed in conjunction with the first three to address > the remote wakeup delay.
Well, does this mean that without the [4-5/5] the rest of the series doesn't provide as much benefit as initially expected?
> Are there specific items you want to see addressed before these patches could go in?
Do you mean in addition to what I already said in my comments?
> I'm aware of the RT/DL support that needs improving, though > that should be orthogonal. > > Also if it helps, I can provide a test case and/or traces to show the > need for the last two patches.
Yes, that will help.
Thanks, Rafael
| |