On 21-11-16, 12:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > I think it should be replaced by a value provided by the driver. It > makes sense to have a rate-limit in so far as that it doesn't make sense > to try and program the hardware faster than it can actually change > frequencies and/or have a programming cost amortization. And this very > clearly is a driver specific thing.
We already have something called as transition_latency for that (though it isn't used much currently). > It however doesn't make sense to me to fudge with this in order to > achieve ramp up/down differences. So if a platform, for example, can do DVFS in say 100-500 us, then the scheduler should try to re-evaluate frequency (and update it) after that short of a period? Wouldn't that scheme waste lots of time doing just freq updates? And that's the primary reason why cpufreq governors have some sort of sampling-rate or rate-limit until now. -- viresh