lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Introduce thermal pressure

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:

> > The only long term maintainable solution is to move all high level
> > cpufreq logic and policy handling code into kernel/sched/cpufreq*.c,
> > which has been done to a fair degree already in the past ~2 years - but
> > it's unclear to me to what extent this is true for thermal throttling
> > policy currently: there might be more governor surgery and code
> > reshuffling required?
>
> It doesn't cover thermal management directly ATM.
>
> The EAS work kind of hopes to make a connection in there by adding a
> common energy model to underlie both the performance scaling and
> thermal management, but it doesn't change the thermal decision making
> part AFAICS.
>
> So it is fair to say that additional governor surgery and code
> reshuffling will be required IMO.

BTW., when factoring out high level thermal management code it might make
sense to increase the prominence of the cpufreq code within the scheduler
and organize it a bit better, by introducing its own
kernel/sched/cpufreq/ directory and renaming things the following way:

kernel/sched/cpufreq.c => kernel/sched/cpufreq/core.c
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c => kernel/sched/cpufreq/metrics.c
kernel/sched/thermal.c => kernel/sched/cpufreq/thermal.c

... or so?

With no change to functionality, this is just a re-organization and
expansion/preparation for the bright future. =B-)

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-18 09:51    [W:0.125 / U:2.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site