Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 21:09:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
Message-ID: <20151119200906.GS3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1447444387-23525-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
 <1447444387-23525-4-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>
 <20151118154457.GD30184@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <564C9E93.8030901@linux.intel.com>
 <20151119172405.GA798@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151119172405.GA798@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 640
Lines: 15

On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:24:07PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> I would consider it an
> emergency-only mechanism (as in emergency brake) that isn't really
> suitable for normal thermal management. In which case: Does this sort of
> mechanism belong in the scheduler code?

I would prefer it not to be, but Thomas is very much opposed to teaching
the nohz code to 'work' on !idle threads.


--
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/