From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering utilization update callbacks
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 23:43:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hkrDq4Fy-zqy3u4EbC1SeCZ4c6aymXYwqvcRgXHuGTYA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160308220632.4103.13377@quark.deferred.io>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Michael Turquette
<mturquette@baylibre.com> wrote:
> Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2016-03-08 12:40:18)
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Michael Turquette
>> <mturquette@baylibre.com> wrote:
>> > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2016-02-23 18:01:06)
>> >> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 11:01:18 AM Juri Lelli wrote:
>> >> > On 22/02/16 22:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > On 19/02/16 23:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> > > >> On Friday, February 19, 2016 08:09:17 AM Juri Lelli wrote:
>> >> > > >> > Hi Rafael,
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > On 18/02/16 21:22, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> >> > > >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > [cut]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> That said, if the concern is that there are plans to change the way the
>> >> > > >> scheduler computes the utilization numbers and that may become difficult to
>> >> > > >> carry out if cpufreq starts to depend on them in their current form, then I
>> >> > > >> may agree that it is valid, but I'm not aware of those plans ATM.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > No, I don't think there's any substantial discussion going on about the
>> >> > > > utilization numbers.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > OK, so the statement below applies.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> However, if the numbers are going to stay what they are, I don't see why
>> >> > > >> passing them to cpufreq may possibly become problematic at any point.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > My concern was mostly on the fact that there is already another RFC
>> >> > > > under discussion that uses the same numbers and has different hooks
>> >> > > > placed in scheduler code (Steve's sched-freq); so, additional hooks
>> >> > > > might generate confusion, IMHO.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So this is about the hooks rather than about their arguments after
>> >> > > all, isn't it?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I fail to see why it is better to drop the arguments and leave the hooks, then.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > It's about where we place such hooks and what arguments they have.
>> >> > Without the schedutil governor as a consumer the current position makes
>> >> > sense, but some of the arguments are not used. With schedutil both
>> >> > position and arguments make sense, but a different implementation
>> >> > (sched-freq) might have different needs w.r.t. position and arguments.
>> >>
>> >> And that's fine. If the current position and/or arguments are not suitable,
>> >> they'll need to be changed. It's not like things introduced today are set
>> >> in stone forever.
>> >>
>> >> Peter has already shown how they may be changed to make everyone happy,
>> >> so I don't really see what the fuss is about.
>> >
>> > I see this patch in linux-next now. Did it ever get Peter's or Ingo's
>> > Ack?
>>
>> No, but none of them said "no" either.
>>
>> And the interface was suggested by Peter in the first place.
>>
>> > Also it seems weird to me that this patch touching sched code is going
>> > through the pm tree.
>>
>> That's for purely practical reasons. There are lots of PM changes
>> depending on it that have nothing to do with the scheduler. I've been
>> talking about that for several times now, last time in my yesterday
>> post (http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=145740561402948&w=2). I've been
>> talking openly about what I'm going to do with this all the time.
>>
>> No one is hiding things from anyone or trying to slip them through
>> past somebody here if that's what you're worried about.
>>
>> > When it comes times to experiment more with the interfaces and make the
>> > "future changes" that everyone keeps talking about, who is the
>> > maintainer? Who has the last word?
>>
>> As usual, it is about consensus.
>
> To be fair, that consensus should be recorded formally by Reviewed-by
> and Acked-by tags.
I would feel much more comfortable with ACKs on the commits touching
the scheduler code, no question about that. :-)
That said, if another maintainer makes PM-related or ACPI-related
changes and follows my suggestions all the way through, I may not feel
like I have to ACK all of that every time. After all, it all boils
down to what happens to the pull request eventually and Acked-by tags
may or may not help there.
>>
>> This is on a boundary of two subsystems and I have good reasons to do
>> it. One of the maintainers of the other subsystem involved is working
>> with me all the time and I'm following his suggestions. Isn't that
>> really sufficient?
>>
>> But really please see
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=145740561402948&w=2 as it means I'm
>> actually going to do what Juri and Steve asked for unless I'm told
>> that this is a bad idea.
>
> I'll take a look. Note that Steve, Juri and Vincent are all at a
> conference this week so their responses may be slow.
That's fine.
I'm not going to send new versions of the patches any time soon
(unless somebody points out a problem to fix in them to me).
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-08 22:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 134+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-29 22:52 [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-29 22:53 ` [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: Add a mechanism for registering " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-04 3:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-01-29 22:56 ` [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Replace timers with " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-01-29 22:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: governor: " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 1:16 ` [Update][PATCH " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-04 4:49 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-04 10:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-05 1:28 ` [PATCH 3/3 v3] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-05 6:50 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-05 13:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-05 14:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-05 23:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-07 9:10 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-07 14:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-08 2:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-08 11:52 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-08 12:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-08 13:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-05 23:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-06 3:40 ` [PATCH 3/3 v4] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-07 9:20 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-07 14:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-07 14:50 ` [PATCH 3/3 v5] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-07 15:36 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-09 10:01 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2016-02-09 18:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-03 22:20 ` [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-04 0:08 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2016-02-04 17:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-04 10:51 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-04 17:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-08 23:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-09 0:39 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-09 1:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-09 20:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 1:02 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-10 1:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 3:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 19:47 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-10 21:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 22:07 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-10 22:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-11 11:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 12:24 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 15:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 18:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-02-12 14:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-12 14:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-03-01 13:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-01 14:17 ` Juri Lelli
2016-03-01 14:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-01 14:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-01 14:42 ` Juri Lelli
2016-03-01 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-01 19:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-01 14:58 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-02-11 17:06 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-11 17:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 17:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-11 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 18:52 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-11 19:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 13:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 14:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-12 16:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 16:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 16:53 ` Ashwin Chaugule
2016-02-12 23:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 17:02 ` Doug Smythies
2016-02-12 23:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 12:33 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 13:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 14:03 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 14:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 14:46 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-10 15:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 16:05 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-11 11:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 12:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-11 15:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-11 15:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-11 20:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 15:17 ` [PATCH v6 " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 15:21 ` [PATCH v6 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 23:01 ` [PATCH v7 " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-11 17:30 ` [PATCH v8 " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 13:16 ` [PATCH v9 " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-15 21:47 ` [PATCH v10 " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-18 20:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-19 8:09 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-19 16:42 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2016-02-19 17:26 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-19 22:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-22 9:42 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-22 21:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-23 11:10 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-24 1:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-22 10:45 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-02-19 17:28 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-19 22:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-23 3:58 ` Steve Muckle
2016-02-22 10:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-22 14:33 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-02-22 15:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-22 14:40 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-22 15:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-02-22 21:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-19 22:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-22 9:32 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-22 21:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-23 11:01 ` Juri Lelli
2016-02-24 2:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-08 19:24 ` Michael Turquette
2016-03-08 20:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
[not found] ` <20160308220632.4103.13377@quark.deferred.io>
2016-03-08 22:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2016-03-09 12:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-03-09 13:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-09 13:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2016-03-09 13:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-03-10 2:12 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-02-10 15:25 ` [PATCH v6 2/3] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Replace timers with " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 15:36 ` [PATCH v6 3/3] cpufreq: governor: " Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-10 23:11 ` [PATCH v6 0/3] cpufreq: " Doug Smythies
2016-02-10 23:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-11 22:50 ` Doug Smythies
2016-02-11 23:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 1:02 ` Doug Smythies
2016-02-12 1:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 7:25 ` Doug Smythies
2016-02-12 13:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-12 17:33 ` Doug Smythies
2016-02-12 23:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-02-11 6:02 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
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=CAJZ5v0hkrDq4Fy-zqy3u4EbC1SeCZ4c6aymXYwqvcRgXHuGTYA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=steve.muckle@linaro.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).