On 17-12-17, 01:19, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > We can do that in principle, but why should it return early? Maybe it's > a good time to update things, incidentally? > > I actually don't like the SCHED_CPUFRREQ_CLEAR flag *concept* as it is very > much specific to schedutil and blatantly ignores everybody else. > > Alternatively, you could add two flags for clearing SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT and > SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL that could just be ingored entirely by intel_pstate. > > So, why don't you make SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT and SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL "sticky" until, > say, SCHED_CPUFREQ_NO_RT and SCHED_CPUFREQ_NO_DL are passed, respectively?
I didn't like adding scheduling class specific flags, and wanted the code to treat all of them in the same way. And then the governors can make a policy over that, on what to ignore and what not to. For example with the current patchset, the governors can know when nothing else is queued on a CPU and CPU is going to get into idle loop. They can choose to (or not to) do something in that case. I just thought that writing consistent (i.e. no special code) code across all classes would be better. -- viresh
