Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 28 Sep 2022 13:42:22 +0100
From:   Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>
To:     rafael@kernel.org
Cc:     daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, lukasz.luba@arm.com,
        Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] cpuidle: teo: Introduce optional util-awareness
Message-ID: <YzRBLiHByw5xPaU3@e126311.manchester.arm.com>
References: <20220915164411.2496380-1-kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220915164411.2496380-1-kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Rafael,

Just a gentle ping here. Could you please take a look at this
discussion?
I'd like to address some comments I received, especially on the subject
of making it reduce the state by one as opposed to going all the way to
0 to account for different hardware and how we can accomodate different
architectures in the implementation of that mechanism.

Before I send a v2 it'd be great to know your opinions on this and
whether I should still send it as a TEO patch or fork it into a separate
governor and make the changes there as both Doug and I seem to prefer.

Thank you in advance for you time,
Kajetan

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 05:44:10PM +0100, Kajetan Puchalski wrote:
> At the very least this approach seems promising so I wanted to discuss it in RFC form first.
> Thank you for taking your time to read this!
> 
> [1] https://github.com/mrkajetanp/lisa-notebooks/blob/a2361a5b647629bfbfc676b942c8e6498fb9bd03/idle_util_aware.pdf
> 
> Kajetan Puchalski (1):
>   cpuidle: teo: Introduce optional util-awareness
> 
>  drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig         | 12 +++++
>  drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 98 insertions(+)
> 
> -- 
> 2.37.1
>