From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
will@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] condition EAS enablement on FI support
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 14:37:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200924133727.GB3920949@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200924123937.20938-1-ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
On Thursday 24 Sep 2020 at 13:39:34 (+0100), Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> Given the maturity gained by cpufreq-based Frequency Invariance (FI)
> support following the patches at [1], this series conditions Energy
> Aware Scheduling (EAS) enablement on a frequency invariant system.
>
> Currently, EAS can be enabled on a system without FI support, leading
> to incorrect (energy-wise) task placements. As no warning is emitted,
> it could take some debugging effort to track the behavior back to the
> lack of FI support; this series changes that by disabling EAS
> (and advertising it) when FI support is missing.
>
> The series is structured as follows:
> - 1/3 - create function that can rebuild the scheduling and EAS'
> performance domains if EAS' initial conditions change
> - 2/3 - condition EAS enablement on FI support
> - 3/3 - arm64: rebuild scheduling and performance domains in the
> case of late, counter-driven FI initialisation.
I'm still reading through this, but shouldn't patch 2 and 3 be swapped?
Otherwise we have a weird state at patch 2 where EAS will fail to start
(IIUC), which might not be ideal for bisection.
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Quentin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-24 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-24 12:39 [PATCH 0/3] condition EAS enablement on FI support Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-24 12:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched/topology,schedutil: wrap sched domains rebuild Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-24 13:34 ` Quentin Perret
2020-09-24 16:07 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-24 12:39 ` [PATCH 2/3] sched/topology: condition EAS enablement on FIE support Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-24 12:39 ` [PATCH 3/3] arm64: rebuild sched domains on invariance status changes Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-24 13:39 ` Quentin Perret
2020-09-24 16:10 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-25 13:59 ` Quentin Perret
2020-09-28 11:55 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-09-28 14:23 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-24 13:37 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2020-09-24 16:08 ` [PATCH 0/3] condition EAS enablement on FI support Ionela Voinescu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200924133727.GB3920949@google.com \
--to=qperret@google.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).