From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update
 callbacks
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:07:51 -0800
Message-ID: <56BBB4B7.2070209@linaro.org>
References: <3071836.JbNxX8hU6x@vostro.rjw.lan> <56B93548.9090006@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0gJwLVezLTLwGX=GDrsGeH6X040JmOaW6_uX2XzQwO9mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <5387313.xAhVpzgZCg@vostro.rjw.lan> <56BA8C29.4090905@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0gBzjz9d7eBLZj3bYNLexTCs+UtNpLwWyZMDTA_Gi=zRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0jF4rJVeauZi08FYbDp6qsB4y3g--O4tx=C15go8z9nbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <56BB93BB.5050405@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0jBB8-q5DOakUoMrPrjBSttZgDuNBEivR5WfdWR4s1mKA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jBB8-q5DOakUoMrPrjBSttZgDuNBEivR5WfdWR4s1mKA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 02/10/2016 01:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> If done this way, I guess we may pass rq_clock_task(rq) as the time
>>> >> arg to cpufreq_update_util() from there and then the cpu_lock() call
>>> >> I've added to this prototype won't be necessary any more.
>> >
>> > Is it rq_clock_task() or rq_clock()? The former can omit irq time so may
>> > gradually fall behind wall clock time, delaying callbacks in cpufreq.
>
> What matters to us is the difference between the current time and the
> time we previously took a sample and there shouldn't be too much
> difference between the two in that respect.

Sorry, the reference to wall clock time was unnecessary. I just meant it
can lose time, which could cause cpufreq updates to be delayed during
irq heavy periods.

> Both are good enough IMO, but I can update the patch to use rq_clock()
> if that's preferred.

I do believe rq_clock should be used as workloads such as heavy
networking could spend a significant portion of time in interrupts,
skewing rq_clock_task significantly, assuming I understand it correctly.

thanks,
Steve