On 10/22/20 14:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 01:45:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:47:03 PM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 22-10-20, 09:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Well, but we need to do something to force people onto schedutil, > > > > otherwise we'll get more crap like this thread. > > > > > > > > Can we take the choice away? Only let Kconfig select which governors are > > > > available and then set the default ourselves? I mean, the end goal being > > > > to not have selectable governors at all, this seems like a good step > > > > anyway. > > > > > > Just to clarify and complete the point a bit here, the users can still > > > pass the default governor from cmdline using > > > cpufreq.default_governor=, which will take precedence over the one the > > > below code is playing with. And later once the kernel is up, they can > > > still choose a different governor from userspace. > > > > Right. > > > > Also some people simply set "performance" as the default governor and then > > don't touch cpufreq otherwise (the idea is to get everything to the max > > freq right away and stay in that mode forever). This still needs to be > > possible IMO. > > Performance/powersave make sense to keep. > > However I do want to retire ondemand, conservative and also very much > intel_pstate/active mode. I also have very little sympathy for > userspace. Userspace is useful for testing and sanity checking. Not sure if people use it to measure voltage/current at each frequency to generate dynamic-power-coefficient for their platform. Lukasz, Dietmar? Thanks -- Qais Yousef > > We should start by making it hard to use them and eventually just delete > them outright. >
