On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:17:44AM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote: > The scenario I'm contemplating is that while a CPU-intensive task is > running a thermal interrupt goes off. The driver for this thermal > interrupt responds by capping fmax. If this happens just after the tick, > it seems possible that we could wait a full tick before changing the > frequency. Given a 10ms tick it could be rather annoying for thermal > management algorithms on some platforms (I'm familiar with a few). So I'm blissfully unaware of all the thermal stuffs we have; but it looks like its somehow bolten onto cpufreq without feedback. The thing I worry about is thermal scaling the CPU back past where RT/DL tasks can still complete in time. It should not be able to do that, or rather, missing deadlines because thermal is about as useful as rebooting the device. I guess I'm saying is, the whole cpufreq/thermal 'interface' needs work anyhow. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
