From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/5] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:16:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151028064635.GC30039@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1864040.ba6Ezq0vlE@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 28-10-15, 07:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 01:39:03 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Currently update_sampling_rate() runs over each online CPU and
> > cancels/queues work on it. Its very inefficient for the case where a
> > single policy manages multiple CPUs, as they can be processed together.
>
> In the case of one policy object shared between multiple CPUs, I'm
> wondering why we don't use a single delayed work function for all of them
> in the first place. That would address the problem at the source instead
> of dealing with the symptoms.
That's what we had long back. The problem is that the timers queued
for cpufreq are deferrable and if the CPU, on which the timer is
queued, goes idle, then the governor would halt. And there can be
other CPUs in the policy->cpus group which are still running.
> > Also drop the unnecessary cancel_delayed_work_sync() as we are doing a
> > mod_delayed_work_on() in gov_queue_work(), which will take care of
> > pending works for us.
>
> I'd prefer a separate patch for that if poss.
okay.
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-28 6:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-13 8:09 [PATCH V3 0/5] CPUFreq: governors: further cleanups Viresh Kumar
2015-10-13 8:09 ` [PATCH V3 1/5] cpufreq: ondemand: Drop unnecessary locks from update_sampling_rate() Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 4:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 4:44 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 5:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 6:43 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 7:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 8:56 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-13 8:09 ` [PATCH V3 2/5] cpufreq: ondemand: update sampling rate immediately Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 6:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 9:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 15:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 15:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 16:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 15:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-13 8:09 ` [PATCH V3 3/5] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 6:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 6:46 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2015-10-28 7:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 8:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-13 8:09 ` [PATCH V3 4/5] cpufreq: governor: Quit work-handlers early if governor is stopped Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 7:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 8:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-28 15:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-10-28 14:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-10-13 8:09 ` [PATCH V3 5/5] cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock 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=20151028064635.GC30039@ubuntu \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).