Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jul 2013 14:06:01 +0100 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 8/9] sched: power: Add initial frequency scaling support to power scheduler |
| |
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 01:51:13PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:10:59PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On 7/9/2013 8:55 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > Extends the power scheduler capacity management algorithm to handle > > > frequency scaling and provide basic frequency/P-state selection hints > > > to the power driver. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> > > > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > > CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > > > CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > > > --- > > > kernel/sched/power.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/power.c b/kernel/sched/power.c > > > index 9e44c0e..5fc32b0 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/sched/power.c > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/power.c > > > @@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ > > > > > > #define INTERVAL 5 /* ms */ > > > #define CPU_FULL 90 /* Busy %-age - TODO: Make tunable */ > > > +#define CPU_TARGET 80 /* Target busy %-age - TODO: Make tunable */ > > > +#define CPU_EMPTY 5 /* Idle noise %-age - TODO: Make tunable */ > > > > > > > to be honest, this is the policy part that really should be in the hardware specific driver > > and not in the scheduler. > > (even if said driver is sort of a "generic library" kind of thing) > > I agree that the values should be set by a hardware specific power > driver. Or do you mean that algorithms using this sort of values should > be in the driver?
I think for flexibility we could place the default algorithm in a library and it would be used by the cpufreq power driver wrapper or directly by a new power driver. The intel_pstate.c driver could be allowed to do smarter things.
-- Catalin
| |