On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:24:07PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > I would consider it an
> > emergency-only mechanism (as in emergency brake) that isn't really
> > suitable for normal thermal management. In which case: Does this sort of
> > mechanism belong in the scheduler code?
>
> I would prefer it not to be, but Thomas is very much opposed to teaching
> the nohz code to 'work' on !idle threads.
The whole concept of faking idle is simply crap.
If you want to avoid that stuff in the scheduler, then create a
mechanism which just defers the next timer interrupt for X
milliseconds and does not any fiddling with NOHZ state and such.
That might hurt RT tasks, but if someone really cares about real-time
and deterministic behaviour, then running the machine on its thermal
limits is simply stupid. In fact any sensible RT system will bring
itself into a safe state way before the machine runs into that
condition.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
