From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 v5] cpufreq: governor: Replace timers with
 utilization update callbacks
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:31:03 +0530
Message-ID: <20160209100103.GB5726@in.ibm.com>
References: <3071836.JbNxX8hU6x@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <1486401.1RcnnVKZNP@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <2848076.UWJmIl2O1K@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <2448026.UXsVxjJmrX@vostro.rjw.lan>
Reply-To: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:54520 "EHLO
	e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755310AbcBIKBh (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 9 Feb 2016 05:01:37 -0500
Received: from localhost
	by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org> from <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Tue, 9 Feb 2016 03:01:36 -0700
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2448026.UXsVxjJmrX@vostro.rjw.lan>
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

Hello Rafael,

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 03:50:31PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> Instead of using a per-CPU deferrable timer for queuing up governor
> work items, register a utilization update callback that will be
> invoked from the scheduler on utilization changes.
> 
> The sampling rate is still the same as what was used for the
> deferrable timers and the added irq_work overhead should be offset by
> the eliminated timers overhead, so in theory the functional impact of
> this patch should not be significant.

I tested this patch series (including v5 of PATCH 3) on POWER with
Viresh's CPUFreq test suite. I didn't see any issues with the
patchset except for a lockdep splat involving "s_active" and
"od_dbs_cdata.mutex", which was also observed on 4.5-rc3 and which
was fixed by Viresh's recent patches. 

With a kernbench run, there were no regression when compared to 4.5-rc3.

FWIW, Tested-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> 
> Thanks,
> Rafael

--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.