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 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).