* Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org wrote:
When you say accommodate all hardware, does it mean we will keep around CPUfreq and allow attempts at improving it? Or we will completely move to scheduler based CPU freq scaling, but won't try to force atomicity? Say, may be queue up a notification to a CPU driver to scale up the frequency as soon as it can?
I don't think we should (or even could) force atomicity - we adapt to whatever the hardware can do.
But the design should be directed at systems where frequency changes can be done in a reasonably fast manner. That is what he future is - any change we initiate today takes years to reach actual products/systems.
IMHO, I think the problem with CPUfreq and its dynamic governors today is that they do a timer based sampling of the CPU load instead of getting some hints from the scheduler when the scheduler knows that the load average is quite high.
Yes - that is one of the "frequency changes are slow" assumptions - which is wrong.
Thanks,
Ingo