On Thu, 18 Dec 2014, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > The real solution is to fix the powerclamp driver by rewriting it with
> > a sane concept, but that's beyond the scope of this.
> >
>
> Do you have suggestions on what exactly is the expected rewriting or the
> correct sane concepts?
There was quite some discussion about this in this very thread.
> > So the only solution for now is to remove the calls into the core NOHZ
> > code from the powerclamp trainwreck along with the exports.
> >
> > Fixes: d6d71ee4a14a "PM: Introduce Intel PowerClamp Driver"
>
> If I got it right, the driver is currently broken due to changes in NOHZ
> core. So, does this patch fix power clamp behavior ?
The driver has been broken forever. It just worked by chance.
Now a very well justified and correct change in the core code exposed
that wreckage. So we have 2 choices:
1) Get rid of the abuse and let powerclamp deal with the problem.
2) Revert a correct patch for the sake of a 'works by chance' driver
or put hacky workarounds in the core. Either of that will just
paper over the real root cause until the next thing breaks in
subtle ways.
#1 is the only sane decision. We cannot deal with misdesigned driver
code in the NOHZ core.
> If I got your proposal right, in the end power clamp will be still
> broken, but at least won't be abusing NOHZ. Is that what you are
> proposing?
Yes, the design of powerclamp stays broken, but the NOHZ abuse is
gone. powerclamp will work, but it can't benefit from the possible
longer idle times anymore.
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/
