People, trim your emails! On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 08:58:30AM -0800, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > I also like #2 too. Specially now that it is not limited to a specific > > platform. One question though, could you still keep the cooling device > > support of it? In some systems, it might make sense to enable / > > disable idle injections based on temperature. > One of the key difference between 1 and 2 is that #2 is open loop > control, since we don't have CPU c-states info baked into scheduler. _yet_, there's people working on that. The whole power aware scheduling stuff needs that. > To close the loop, perhaps we can export some internal APIs to the > thermal subsystem then the thermal governors can pick the condition to > inject idle. I would much rather that all be part of the power aware stuff, such that the scheduler itself is aware of thermal limits and can migrate load away if needed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
