From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752442AbaIGLrT (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2014 07:47:19 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com ([209.85.212.177]:34524 "EHLO mail-wi0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751258AbaIGLrS (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2014 07:47:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 14:47:13 +0300 From: Abel Vesa To: alex.shi@intel.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, peterz@infradead.org, pjt@google.com, efault@gmx.de, rjw@rjwysocki.net, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, mingo@kernel.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, markgross@thegnar.org, corbet@lwn.net, catalin.marinas@arm.com, sundar.iyer@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mike.turquette@linaro.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Subject: Power Scheduler Design Message-ID: <20140907114705.GA10470@abel-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org For a while now, I've started studying the power aware scheduling problem. And like many other rookies out there I took all the lkml mails related and read them all (well, almost all) and I saw that there are some debating on the implementation.I even look over the implementation proposed of Preeti U Murthy. I also worked (just for fun) for a while on some ideas of my own (nothing worth sharing, yet) but I have problem understanding the design requirements. Here is one. Some of you (even Ingo) said that the scheduler should be the one to manage the cpu P/C states. In this case the governors of the cpuidle and cpufreq would not make any sense anymore. Does that mean they will not be a part of this scheduling solution anymore?