Re: [PATCH v4] sched: Provide USF for the portable equipment.

2020-08-05 Thread Qais Yousef
il_clamp_min/max. I don't see uclamp being a suitable interface for in-kernel users. PM_QOS is more suitable in my opinion for in-kernel users if you want to impact the overall system performance. I might have misunderstood what you were saying above. If so

Re: [PATCH v4] sched: Provide USF for the portable equipment.

2020-08-05 Thread Qais Yousef
usf_non_ux_r from userspace with acceptable results, then uclamp should be able to cover the same functionality. What am I missing? Thanks -- Qais Yousef ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel

Re: [PATCH v4] sched: Provide USF for the portable equipment.

2020-08-04 Thread Qais Yousef
.util_min = 0, .util_max = 1024 }; sched_setattr(p, attr); } There's a cgroup API for util clamp too. Thanks -- Qais Yousef ___ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel