Hi, On 30/03/17 00:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, March 24, 2017 02:08:59 PM Juri Lelli wrote: > > No assumption can be made upon the rate at which frequency updates get > > triggered, as there are scheduling policies (like SCHED_DEADLINE) which > > don't trigger them so frequently. > > > > Remove such assumption from the code. > > But the util/max values for idle CPUs may be stale, no? >
Right, that might be a problem. A proper solution I think would be to remotely update such values for idle CPUs, and I believe Vincent is working on a patch for that. As mid-term workarounds, changing a bit the current one, come to my mind: - consider TICK_NSEC (continue) only when SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL is not set - remove CFS contribution (without triggering a freq update) when a CPU enters IDLE; this might not work well, though, as we probably want to keep in blocked util contribution for a bit What you think is the way to go? Thanks, - Juri
