Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1547197612.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <CAJZ5v0gs3FnCgFS8rg7vwCeATJKfR+mfMVrpkTbM237XVhpDJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190117131631.GA14385@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <20190117131631.GA14385@localhost.localdomain>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Jan 2019 15:55:12 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jFqXGf_G2v1VNXSxyiDzgeFY8OKUFu2tQ8Wso3dBS+_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:16 PM Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/01/19 10:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This commit introduces the frequency constraint infrastructure, which
> > > provides a generic interface for parts of the kernel to constraint the
> > > working frequency range of a device.
> > >
> > > The primary users of this are the cpufreq and devfreq frameworks. The
> > > cpufreq framework already implements such constraints with help of
> > > notifier chains (for thermal and other constraints) and some local code
> > > (for user-space constraints). The devfreq framework developers have also
> > > shown interest [1] in such a framework, which may use it at a later
> > > point of time.
> > >
> > > The idea here is to provide a generic interface and get rid of the
> > > notifier based mechanism.
> > >
> > > Only one constraint is added for now for the cpufreq framework and the
> > > rest will follow after this stuff is merged.
> > >
> > > Matthias Kaehlcke was involved in the preparation of the first draft of
> > > this work and so I have added him as Co-author to the first patch.
> > > Thanks Matthias.
> > >
> > > FWIW, This doesn't have anything to do with the boot-constraints
> > > framework [2] I was trying to upstream earlier :)
> >
> > This is quite a bit of code to review, so it will take some time.
> >
> > One immediate observation is that it seems to do quite a bit of what
> > is done in the PM QoS framework, so maybe there is an opportunity for
> > some consolidation in there.
>
> Right, had the same impression. :-)
>
> I was also wondering how this new framework is dealing with
> constraints/request imposed/generated by the scheduler and related
> interfaces (thinking about schedutil and Patrick's util_clamp).

My understanding is that it is orthogonal to them, like adding extra
constraints on top of them etc.