From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google.)" <joelaf@google.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
claudio@evidence.eu.com, kernel-team@android.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] schedutil: Allow cpufreq requests to be made even when kthread kicked
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:38:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180522103851.GW30654@e110439-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180522102305.uxph4u4o2zrvu4tx@vireshk-i7>
Hi Viresh,
thanks for clarifying...
On 22-May 15:53, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-05-18, 10:20, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 06:00:50PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > If that's the case, this means that if, for example, during a
> > > frequency switch you get a request to reduce the frequency (e.g.
> > > deadline task passing the 0-lag time) and right after a request to
> > > increase the frequency (e.g. the current FAIR task tick)... you will
> > > enqueue a freq drop followed by a freq increase and actually do two
> > > frequency hops?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> Consider the kthread as running currently and has just cleared the
> work_in_progress flag. Sched update comes at that time and we decide
> to reduce the frequency, we queue another work and update next_freq.
> Now if another sched update comes before the kthread finishes its
> previous loop, we will simply update next_freq and return. So when the
> next time kthread runs, it will pick the most recent update.
Mmm... right... looking better at the two execution contexts:
// A) Frequency update requests
sugov_update_commit() {
sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) {
sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
}
}
// B) Actual frequency updates
sugov_work() {
freq = sg_policy->next_freq;
sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, freq, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
}
It's true that A will enqueue only one B at the first next_freq update
and then it will keep just updating the next_freq.
Thus, we should be ensure to have always just one kwork pending in the
queue.
> Where is the problem both of you see ?
Perhaps the confusion comes just from the naming of
"work_in_progress", which is confusing since we use it now to
represent that we enqueued a frequency change and we wait for the
kwork to pick it up.
Maybe it can help to rename it to something like kwork_queued or
update_pending, update_queued... ?
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-22 10:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-18 18:55 [PATCH v2] schedutil: Allow cpufreq requests to be made even when kthread kicked Joel Fernandes (Google.)
2018-05-18 21:13 ` Saravana Kannan
2018-05-18 21:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-21 5:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-21 8:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-21 9:57 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-21 16:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-22 10:02 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 11:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 15:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 17:07 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-21 10:50 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-21 15:49 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-21 17:00 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-21 17:20 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-21 17:41 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-22 10:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-22 10:38 ` Patrick Bellasi [this message]
2018-05-21 18:05 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-22 10:26 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-22 10:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-22 10:50 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-22 10:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 10:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-22 11:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 11:38 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-22 11:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 12:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 15:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 21:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-22 21:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-22 22:28 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-22 10:51 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-22 10:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-22 22:09 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-23 8:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-23 9:01 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-23 9:42 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-23 10:06 ` Viresh Kumar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180522103851.GW30654@e110439-lin \
--to=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tkjos@google.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.