[PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/28/2013 02:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu
>>>> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits
>>>> better for a periodic timer tick system.
>>>>
>>>> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in
>>>> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be
>>>> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder
>>>> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line.
>>>>
>>>> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by
>>>> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really
>>>> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one
>>>> or another governor.
>>>>
>>>> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see
>>>> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it.
>>>>
>>>> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option:
>>>>  - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder
>>>>    governor is optional, defaulting to 'no'
>>>
>>> Why not defaulting to 'yes'?  That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder
>> governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ?
> 
> I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think.
> 
> You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to
> avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the
> answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case).
> 
> I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the
> default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly.
> 
>>>>  - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the
>>>>    menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no'
>>>
>>> Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ
>>> unset?
>>
>> Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder
>> instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this
>> configuration).
> 
> Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly?  Less power-efficient or less
> efficient performance-wise?

less power efficient.

>> Currently the default is the menu governor with a periodic tick system
>> because both governors are compiled in and the init order makes the menu
>> governor to be enabled instead of the 'ladder'.
> 
> I understand that.
> 
>> We can set both to 'yes' by default but in this case, I suggest to add
>> in the code a 'preferred' governor depending on tickless or not, so the
>> right governor is chosen at boot time depending on CONFIG_NO_HZ.
>>
>> Otherwise, I am not sure people running servers (with a periodic tick)
>> will change their kernel command line option to enable the sysfs
>> governor switch to change the governor to ladder, neither they are aware
>> ladder is better for their system.
>>
>> I am open to any suggestion.
> 
> I think the change to make the governor preference depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ
> kind of makes sense.  However, I'd default to 'yes' for both governors in both
> configurations to start with (which basically means that the ordering will now
> depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ).

Ok, no problem. I will respin the patch.

Thanks for the review

  -- Daniel


-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog