Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1339945

Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> On 19/02/16 23:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 08:09:17 AM Juri Lelli wrote:
>> > Hi Rafael,
>> >
>> > On 18/02/16 21:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> > > >

[cut]

>> That said, if the concern is that there are plans to change the way the
>> scheduler computes the utilization numbers and that may become difficult to
>> carry out if cpufreq starts to depend on them in their current form, then I
>> may agree that it is valid, but I'm not aware of those plans ATM.
>>
>
> No, I don't think there's any substantial discussion going on about the
> utilization numbers.

OK, so the statement below applies.

>> However, if the numbers are going to stay what they are, I don't see why
>> passing them to cpufreq may possibly become problematic at any point.
>
> My concern was mostly on the fact that there is already another RFC
> under discussion that uses the same numbers and has different hooks
> placed in scheduler code (Steve's sched-freq); so, additional hooks
> might generate confusion, IMHO.

So this is about the hooks rather than about their arguments after
all, isn't it?

I fail to see why it is better to drop the arguments and leave the hooks, then.

OTOH, I see reasons for keeping the arguments along with the hooks,
but let me address that in my next reply.

Now, if the call sites of the hooks change in the future, it won't be
a problem for me as long as the new hooks are invoked on a regular
basis or, if they aren't, as long as I can figure out from the
arguments they pass that I should not expect an update any time soon.

If the arguments change, it won't be a problem either as long as they
are sufficient to be inserted into the frequency selection formula
used by the schedutil governor I posted and produce sensible
frequencies for the CPU.

Thanks,
Rafael

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v6 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-10 16:40 +0100
  [PATCH v7 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-11 00:10 +0100
    [PATCH v8 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-11 18:30 +0100
      [PATCH v9 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-12 14:20 +0100
        [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-15 22:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-02-18 21:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-19 09:10 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> - 2016-02-19 17:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-02-19 18:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-19 23:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-02-23 05:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-22 12:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-02-22 15:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-22 16:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-22 15:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-22 16:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-02-22 22:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-19 18:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-19 23:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-22 10:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-02-22 22:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-23 12:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-24 03:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-02-22 11:50 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-19 23:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-22 10:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-02-22 22:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering  utilization update callbacks Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-23 12:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-02-24 03:00 +0100

csiph-web