From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/14] sched/topology: Make Energy Aware Scheduling depend on schedutil Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 10:56:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4111046.18AB1cFGcU@aspire.rjw.lan> References: <20180820094420.26590-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20180906143842.xlxcg5notwdaflww@queper01-lin> <1545744.fI5ZvP8FO0@aspire.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1545744.fI5ZvP8FO0@aspire.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Quentin Perret Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Chris Redpath , Patrick Bellasi , Valentin Schneider , Vincent Guittot , Thara Gopinath , Viresh Kumar , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , adharmap@codeaurora.org, Saravana Kannan List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Friday, September 7, 2018 10:52:01 AM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:38:44 PM CEST Quentin Perret wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > > > On Thursday 06 Sep 2018 at 11:18:55 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > I'm not a particular fan of notifiers to be honest and you don't need > > > to add an extra chain just in order to be able to register a callback > > > from a single user. > > > > Right. I agree there are alternatives to using notifiers. I used them > > because they're existing infrastructure, and because they let me do what > > I want without too much troubles, which are two important points. > > > > > That can be achieved with a single callback > > > pointer too, but also you could just call a function exported by the > > > scheduler directly from where in the cpufreq code it needs to be > > > called. > > > > Are you thinking about something comparable to what is done in > > cpufreq_add_update_util_hook() (kernel/sched/cpufreq.c) for example ? > > That would probably have the same drawback as my current implementation, > > that is that the scheduler is notified of _all_ governor changes, not > > only changes to/from sugov although this is the only thing we care about > > for EAS. > > Well, why don't you implement it as something like "if the governor changes > from sugov to something else (or the other way around), call this function > from the scheduler"? That said, governors are stopped and started in a few cases other than just changing the governor, so maybe you want the EAS side to be notified whenever sugov is stopped and started after all?