On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:29:02AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, Patrick. > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > However, the "best effort" bandwidth control we have for CFS and RT > > can be further improved if, instead of just looking at time spent on > > CPUs, we provide some more hints to the scheduler to know at which > > min/max "MIPS" we want to consume the (best effort) time we have been > > allocated on a CPU. > > > > Such a simple extension is still quite useful to satisfy many use-case > > we have, mainly on mobile systems, like the ones I've described in the > > "Newcomer's Short Abstract (Updated)" > > section of the cover letter: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180716082906.6061-1-patrick.bell...@arm.com/T/#u > > So, that's all completely fine but then let's please not give it a > name which doesn't quite match what it does. We can just call it > e.g. cpufreq range control.
But then what name can one give it if it does more than one thing, like task-placement and CPU frequency control? It doesn't make sense to name it cpufreq IMHO. Its a clamp on the utilization of the task which can be used for many purposes. thanks, - Joel
