Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] Scheduler idle notifiers and users

[Saravana Kannan]

On 02/11/2012 06:45 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Saravana Kannan<skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/