Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: cpufreq_cfs: pelt-based cpu frequency scaling

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:10:41PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote:
> This policy is implemented using the cpufreq governor interface for two
> main reasons:
> 
> 1) re-using the cpufreq machine drivers without using the governor
> interface is hard.
> 
> 2) using the cpufreq interface allows us to switch between the
> scheduler-driven policy and legacy cpufreq governors such as ondemand at
> run-time. This is very useful for comparative testing and tuning.

Urgh,. so I don't really like that. It adds a lot of noise to the
system. You do the irq work thing to kick the cpufreq threads which do
their little thing -- and their wakeup will influence the cfs
accounting, which in turn will start the whole thing anew.

I would really prefer you did a whole new system with directly invoked
drivers that avoid the silly dance. Your 'new' ARM systems should be
well capable of that.

You can still do 2 if you create a cpufreq off switch. You can then
either enable the sched one or the legacy cpufreq -- or both if you want
a trainwreck ;-)

As to the drivers, they're mostly fairly small and self contained, it
should not be too hard to hack them up to work without cpufreq.
--
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/