Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753089AbdDJLDO (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:03:14 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:36168 "EHLO mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752144AbdDJLDM (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Apr 2017 07:03:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87k26sv96o.fsf@arm.com> References: <3498238.liCqOyIkGA@aspire.rjw.lan> <2407280.n9qVSLCrF5@aspire.rjw.lan> <87k26sv96o.fsf@arm.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:03:11 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: q2aZk5TsSKr_7vRgUxXXcR4sIkU Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Use policy-dependent latency multupliers To: Brendan Jackman Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM , Juri Lelli , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Srinivas Pandruvada , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Patrick Bellasi , Joel Fernandes , Morten Rasmussen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1196 Lines: 32 On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Brendan Jackman wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On Mon, Apr 10 2017 at 00:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >> >> Make the schedutil governor compute the initial (default) value of >> the rate_limit_us sysfs attribute by multiplying the transition >> latency by a multiplier depending on the policy and set by the >> scaling driver (instead of using a constant for this purpose). >> >> That will allow scaling drivers to make schedutil use smaller default >> values of rate_limit_us and reduce the default average time interval >> between consecutive frequency changes. >> > > I've been thinking about this over the last couple of days, and I'm > thinking (in opposition to what I said at OSPM Pisa) that allowing > drivers to specify a _multiplier_ isn't ideal, since you lose > granularity when you want your rate limit to be close to your transition > latency (i.e. if your multiplier would be 2.5 or something). > > Can we instead just have an independent field > policy->default_rate_limit_us or similar? Yes, we can. Let me cut a v2 of this, shouldn't be too hard. :-) Thanks, Rafael