Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756759Ab3JNQNT (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:13:19 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:54964 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750837Ab3JNQNR (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:13:17 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,493,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="307582156" Message-ID: <525C1817.1050909@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:13:11 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Morten Rasmussen CC: Peter Zijlstra , "mingo@kernel.org" , "pjt@google.com" , "rjw@sisk.pl" , "dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com" , "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" , "alex.shi@linaro.org" , "preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "efault@gmx.de" , "corbet@lwn.net" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , Catalin Marinas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] sched: power: Remove power capacity hints for kworker threads References: <1381511957-29776-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <1381511957-29776-5-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com> <20131014133356.GN3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131014161011.GO31039@e103034-lin> In-Reply-To: <20131014161011.GO31039@e103034-lin> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1104 Lines: 24 On 10/14/2013 9:10 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 02:33:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:19:14PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >>> Removing power hints for kworker threads enables easier use of >>> workqueues in the power driver late callback. That would otherwise >>> lead to an endless loop unless it is prevented in the power driver. >> >> There's many kworker users; some of them actually consume lots of >> cputime. Therefore how did you come to the conclusion that excepting all >> users was the better choice of a little added complexity in the one >> place where it actually matters? > > Agreed that it is not ideal. I will find a better solution for this > problem. > can you explain which architectures we're talking about that need this? is it only old stuff, or is there anything current ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/