On 10/30/2017 12:02 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Also, this more looks like a policy decision. Will it be better to
>> put that directly into schedutil? Like this:
>>
>> if (cpu_idle())
>> "Don't change the freq";
>>
>> Will something like that work?
>
> I thought about this and I think it wont work very well. In the
> dequeue path we're still running the task being dequeued so the CPU is
> not yet idle. What is needed here IMO is a notion that the CPU is
> possibly about to idle and we can get predict that from the dequeue
> path of the CFS class.
>
> Also just looking at whether the CPU is currently idle or not in the
> governor doesn't help to differentiate between say the dequeue path /
> tick path. Both of which can occur when the CPU is not idle.
>
> Any thoughts about this?
Also if it really is the case that this bit of policy is universally
desirable, I'd think it is better to do this in the scheduler and avoid
a needless trip through a fn pointer out to schedutil for performance
reasons.
From 1582711286139098451@xxx Mon Oct 30 19:18:23 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582495113361800894
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums