On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:10:41PM -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > This policy is implemented using the cpufreq governor interface for two > main reasons: > > 1) re-using the cpufreq machine drivers without using the governor > interface is hard. > > 2) using the cpufreq interface allows us to switch between the > scheduler-driven policy and legacy cpufreq governors such as ondemand at > run-time. This is very useful for comparative testing and tuning.
Urgh,. so I don't really like that. It adds a lot of noise to the system. You do the irq work thing to kick the cpufreq threads which do their little thing -- and their wakeup will influence the cfs accounting, which in turn will start the whole thing anew. I would really prefer you did a whole new system with directly invoked drivers that avoid the silly dance. Your 'new' ARM systems should be well capable of that. You can still do 2 if you create a cpufreq off switch. You can then either enable the sched one or the legacy cpufreq -- or both if you want a trainwreck ;-) As to the drivers, they're mostly fairly small and self contained, it should not be too hard to hack them up to work without cpufreq. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
