From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/19] cpufreq locking cleanups and documentation Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:45:10 +0100 Message-ID: <2391932.X0YjLeUrXE@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1452533760-13787-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:53578 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1758674AbcAKWok (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:44:40 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1452533760-13787-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Juri Lelli Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, steve.muckle@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com On Monday, January 11, 2016 05:35:41 PM Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi all, > > In the context of the ongoing discussion about introducing a simple platform > energy model to guide scheduling decisions (Energy Aware Scheduling [1]) > concerns have been expressed by Peter about the component in charge of driving > clock frequency selection (Steve recently posted an update of such component > [2]): https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/15/141. > > The problem is that, with this new approach, cpufreq core functions need to be > accessed from scheduler hot-paths and the overhead associated with the current > locking scheme might result to be unsustainable. > > Peter's proposed approach of using RCU logic to reduce locking overhead seems > reasonable, but things may not be so straightforward as originally thought. The > very first thing I actually realized when I started looking into this is that > it was hard for me to understand which locking mechanism was protecting which > data structure. As mostly a way to build a better understanding of the current > cpufreq locking scheme and also as preparatory work for implementing RCU logic, > I came up with this set of patches. In fact, at this stage, I would like each > patch to be considered as a question I'm asking rather than a proposed change, > thus the RFC tag for the series; with the intent of documenting current locking > scheme and modifying it a bit in order to make RCU logic implementation easier. > Actually, as you'll soon notice, I didn't really start from scratch. Mike > shared with me some patches he has been developing while looking at the same > problem. I've given Mike attribution for the patches that I took unchanged from > him, with thanks for sharing his findings with me. > > High level description of patches: > > o [01-04] cleanup and move code around to make things (hopefully) cleaner > o [05-14] insert lockdep assertions and fix uncovered erroneous situations > o [15-18] remove overkill usage of locking mechanism > o 19 adds documentation for the cleaned up locking scheme > > With Viresh' tests [3] on both arm TC2 and arm64 Juno boards I'm not seeing > anything bad happening. However, coverage is really small (as is my personal > confidence of not breaking things for other confs :-)). > > This set is based on top of linux-pm/linux-next as of today and it is also > available from here: Due to the merge window in progress I have more urgent things to do than looking at this material right now. Sorry about that. I may be able to look at it towards the end of the week. Thanks, Rafael