From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quentin Perret Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] sched/core: uclamp: request CAP_SYS_ADMIN by default Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 11:00:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20180927100021.kpdyol44qpzassup@queper01-lin> References: <20180828135324.21976-15-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180904134748.GA4974@localhost.localdomain> <20180906144053.GD25636@e110439-lin> <20180914111003.GC24082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180914140732.GR1413@e110439-lin> <20180914142813.GM24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180917122723.GS1413@e110439-lin> <20180921091308.GD24082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180924151400.GT1413@e110439-lin> <20180925154956.GA30146@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180925154956.GA30146@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Patrick Bellasi , Juri Lelli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Paul Turner , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 25 Sep 2018 at 17:49:56 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > I really don't see how changing the unit changes anything. Either you > want to relate to OPPs and those are exposed in 1/1024 unit capacity > through the EAS files, or you don't and then the knob has no meaning. FWIW, with the latest versions of the EAS series, we don't expose the capacity of the various OPPs directly any more. You have 'frequency', 'power' and a more abstract thing called 'cost' (which is useful for energy computations) in the sysfs files of the EM. We decided to remove the 'capacity' file to simplify things quite a bit, and because it wasn't helping much. I'm talking about this discussion w/ Dietmar on v4: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180717141955.GA4496@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com/ But it is also true that we could add back that 'capacity' file if it makes sense for uclamp. It's just an additional show() function in energy_model.c, so no problem on that side per se. The only problem is if you want to use uclamp w/o EAS, I guess ... Thanks, Quentin