On Wed, 04 Jun 2014 23:34:51 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 04, 2014 01:58:12 AM Jacob Pan wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 10:54:18 +0200 > > Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm still sitting on this patch. Jacub you were going to make it > > > play nice with QoS? > > > > > I had a patchset to work through system PM QOS and still maintain > > the idle injection efficiency. When I saw you did not merge the > > patch below, I thought you have abandoned it :) > > > > The only issue as per our last discussion is the lack of > > notification when PM QOS cannot be met. But that is intrinsic to PM > > QOS itself. > > > > I also consulted with Arjan and looked at directly intercept with > > intel_idle since both intel_powerclamp and intel_idle are arch > > specific drivers. But I think that is hard to do at per idle period > > basis, since we should still allow "natural" idle during the forced > > idle time. > > > > So, I think we can take a two stepped approach, > > 1. integrate your patch with a > > updated version of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/26/534 such that > > there is no performance/efficiency regression. > > 2. add notification mechanism to system qos when constraints cannot > > be met. > > And then there's a question about how the notification would be > supposed to work. So I guess we can proceed with 1. and really leave > 2. for some time in the future ATM. Sounds good. Let me test/integrate Peter's patch with PM QoS change, powerclamp and acpipad then come up with a patchset. Thanks, Jacob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
