Re: [PATCH v6 13/14] sched/topology: Make Energy Aware Scheduling depend on schedutil

[Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>]

Hi Rafael,

On Sunday 09 Sep 2018 at 22:13:52 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 07 Sep 2018 at 10:52:01 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, why don't you implement it as something like "if the governor changes
> > > from sugov to something else (or the other way around), call this function
> > > from the scheduler"?
> >
> > I just gave it a try and ended up with the diff below. It's basically
> > the exact same patch with a direct function call instead of a notifier.
> > (I also tried the sugov_start/stop thing I keep mentioning but it is
> > more complex, so let's see if the simplest solution could work first).
> >
> > What do you think ?
> 
> This generally works for me from the cpufreq perspective, but I would
> add "cpufreq" to the name of the new function, that is call it
> something like sched_cpufreq_governor_change().

Ok, no problem.

> Also do you really need the extra work item?  Governor changes are
> carried out in process context anyway.

Ah, good point, I can remove that. I just tried and got the following
lock warning on boot, though:

[    2.518684] ============================================
[    2.523942] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
[    2.529200] 4.18.0-rc6-00086-g940e7a9fd5ec #10 Not tainted
[    2.534630] --------------------------------------------
[    2.539888] kworker/2:3/1349 is trying to acquire lock:
[    2.545059] (____ptrval____) (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: rebuild_sched_domains_locked+0x2c/0x598
[    2.554559]
[    2.554559] but task is already holding lock:
[    2.560332] (____ptrval____) (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: cpufreq_register_driver+0x80/0x1d0
[    2.569396]
[    2.569396] other info that might help us debug this:
[    2.575858]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[    2.575858]
[    2.581717]        CPU0
[    2.584135]        ----
[    2.586553]   lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
[    2.590785]   lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
[    2.595017]
[    2.595017]  *** DEADLOCK ***
[    2.595017]
[    2.600877]  May be due to missing lock nesting notation

That seems to happen because cpufreq_register_driver() calls
cpus_read_lock(), which is then called again by rebuild_sched_domains()
down the line. So it might just be a missing lock nesting notation as
the warning suggests ?

I'll have a look.

Thanks,
Quentin