From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Muckle Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we add Android's Interactive governor into mainline now? Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 23:14:38 -0700 Message-ID: <20160513061438.GB28594@graphite.smuckle.net> References: <20160512163648.GB12886@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160512211012.GA28594@graphite.smuckle.net> <20160513032156.GE3415@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:33124 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750750AbcEMGOm (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 May 2016 02:14:42 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 206so39165692pfu.0 for ; Thu, 12 May 2016 23:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160513032156.GE3415@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Steve Muckle , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Peter Zijlstra , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , Ingo Molnar , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 08:51:56AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-05-16, 14:10, Steve Muckle wrote: > > By far the biggest user of interactive is Android (I'm not aware of its > > use elsewhere). Persuading Google to switch is relatively doable once a > > viable alternative exists. After that point I'd expect the desire to > > merge and maintain interactive would almost immediately disappear. Folks > > wanting to run upstream kernels on already released devices have much > > bigger hurdles than merging the interactive governor. > > > > But if interactive is merged I'm worried that many other users on random > > platforms will adopt it, for whatever reason, introducing a support > > burden during a time that we're trying to develop and encourage an > > alternative. > > Lets assume that its going to take enough time for (specially) Android to start > using the schedutil governor. That's how it works. Perhaps I'm more optimistic about schedutil's swift adoption by Google once it's reached feature parity with interactive. > So, if we are worried about new users using it (who may not have a good reason > to do that but did it by mistake), maybe we can make the interactive governor > depend on CONFIG_ARM. Is there precedent for putting in artificial dependencies (i.e. ones with no real runtime technical justification) for this kind of purpose, i.e. to limit who starts using a merged feature? It seems a bit messy to me.