On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:20, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/12/23 14:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Provide to the scheduler a feedback about the temporary max available
> > capacity. Unlike arch_update_thermal_pressure, this doesn't need to be
> > filtered as the pressure will happen for
On 12/14/23 09:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:07 AM Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 12/14/23 07:57, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:43, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
@@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:07 AM Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
> On 12/14/23 07:57, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:43, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> @@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy
> >>>
On 12/12/23 14:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Provide to the scheduler a feedback about the temporary max available
capacity. Unlike arch_update_thermal_pressure, this doesn't need to be
filtered as the pressure will happen for dozens ms or more.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
On 12/14/23 07:57, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:43, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
@@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy
*policy,
policy->max = __resolve_freq(policy, policy->max,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:43, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > @@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy
> > *policy,
> > policy->max = __resolve_freq(policy, policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> >
On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> @@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy
> *policy,
> policy->max = __resolve_freq(policy, policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> trace_cpu_frequency_limits(policy);
>
> + cpus = policy->related_cpus;
> +
On 13-12-23, 16:41, Tim Chen wrote:
> Seems like the pressure value computed from the first CPU applies to all CPU.
> Will this be valid for non-homogeneous CPUs that could have different
> max_freq and max_capacity?
The will be part of different cpufreq policies and so it will work
fine.
--
On Tue, 2023-12-12 at 15:27 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Provide to the scheduler a feedback about the temporary max available
> capacity. Unlike arch_update_thermal_pressure, this doesn't need to be
> filtered as the pressure will happen for dozens ms or more.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent
On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 08:17, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Provide to the scheduler a feedback about the temporary max available
> > capacity. Unlike arch_update_thermal_pressure, this doesn't need to be
> > filtered as the pressure will happen for dozens
On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Provide to the scheduler a feedback about the temporary max available
> capacity. Unlike arch_update_thermal_pressure, this doesn't need to be
> filtered as the pressure will happen for dozens ms or more.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
> ---
>
Provide to the scheduler a feedback about the temporary max available
capacity. Unlike arch_update_thermal_pressure, this doesn't need to be
filtered as the pressure will happen for dozens ms or more.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 48
12 matches
Mail list logo
