On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a > > > new > > > policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a > > > similar action. > > > > > > Instead of implementing idle injections privately in the > > > cpu_cooling > > > device, move the idle injection code in a dedicated framework and > > > give > > > the opportunity to other frameworks to make use of it. > > > > > > The framework relies on the smpboot kthreads which handles via > > > its > > > main loop the common code for hotplugging and [un]parking. > > > > > > This code was previously tested with the cpu cooling device and > > > went > > > through several iterations. It results now in split code and API > > > exported in the header file. It was tested with the cpu cooling > > > device > > > with success. > > > > > > > May be I have missed, but I don't see any use of powercap sysfs. > > > > We created powercap sys that user space is presented a common > > interface > > for power capping. The RAPL driver was also submitted as cooling > > device > > before, but suggestion was to create this powercap. > > > > So if powercap interface is not enough then may be we should > > enhance > > that. > > We are creating a framework for idle injection. This framework can > then > be used by the cpu_cooling device, the power_clamp and in addition a > power capping for ARM (if it makes sense). But in this case, why in drivers/powercap folder as this is another framework?
Thanks, Srinivas > > >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
