Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 May 2020 14:05:07 +0100 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/14] Modularize schedutil |
| |
On Friday 08 May 2020 at 13:31:41 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 12:16:12PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote: > > However, the point I tried to make here is orthogonal to that. As of > > today using another governor than schedutil is fully supported upstream, > > and in fact it isn't even enabled by default for most archs. If vendors > > feel like using something else makes their product better, then I don't > > see why I need to argue with them about that. And frankly I don't see > > that support being removed from upstream any time soon. > > Right, it'll take a while to get there. But that doesn't mean we > shouldn't encourage schedutil usage wherever and whenever possible. That > includes not making it easier to not use it. > > In that respect making it modular goes against our ultimate goal (world > domination, <mad giggles here>).
Right, I definitely understand the sentiment. OTOH, things like that give vendors weapons against GKI ('you-force-us-to-build-in-things-we-dont't-want' etc etc). That _is_ true to some extent, but it's important we make sure to keep this to an absolute minimum, otherwise GKI just won't happen (and I really think that'd be a shame, GKI _is_ a good thing for upstream).
And sure, schedutil isn't that big, and we can make an exception. But I'm sure you know what happens when you starting making exceptions ;)
So, all in all, I don't think the series actively makes schedutil worse by adding out-of-line calls in the hot path or anything like that, and having it as a module helps with GKI which I'm arguing is a good thing in the grand scheme of things. That of course is only true if we can agree on a reasonable set of exported symbols, so I'll give others some time to complain and see if I can post a v2 addressing these issues!
Cheers, Quentin
| |