From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/6] cpufreq/sched: Improve synchronization of policy limits updates with schedutil
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:52:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6171293.lOV4Wx5bFT@rjwysocki.net> (raw)
Hi Everyone,
This is an update of
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/3364921.aeNJFYEL58@rjwysocki.net/
that replaces the first patch with a better fix and adds one more patch
after the second one.
The original cover letter is still generally applicable:
"This series of patches has been inspired by the discussion following a bug
report regarding the patch at
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241212015734.41241-2-sultan@kerneltoast.com/
and its attempted unsuccessful resolution:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20250410024439.20859-1-sultan@kerneltoast.com/
which basically leads to the conclusion that cpufreq policy limits updates are
not sufficiently synchronized with the scheditil governor, especially in the
fast switching case in which running the driver callback is the only way to
make the new policy limits take effect.
The purpose of this series is to address this concern."
Patch [1/6] is a fix for the issue introduced by the patch linked above (please
see the patch changelog for details), for 6.15-rc. The remaining patches are
for 6.16.
Patch [2/6] adds memory barriers in two places in schedutil along with some
WRITE_ONCE()/READ_ONCE() annotations to ensure that policy limits updates will
not be missed due to reordering of instructions.
Patch [3/6] prevents limits_changed from being used for purposes unrelated to
changing the policy limits.
Patch [4/6] is a preparatory function rename with no functional impact.
Patch [5/6] updates the cpufreq core to avoid situations in which
cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(), called by schedutil, may see intermediate
values of policy->min and policy->max and makes that function address the
unlikely case in which it may see policy->min > policy->max.
Patch [6/6] cleans up the code after the previous changes.
Please see individual patch changelogs for details.
Thanks!
next reply other threads:[~2025-04-15 10:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-15 9:52 Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2025-04-15 9:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] cpufreq/sched: Fix the usage of CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-16 11:35 ` Christian Loehle
2025-04-20 1:10 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2025-04-15 9:59 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] cpufreq/sched: Explicitly synchronize limits_changed flag handling Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-16 12:01 ` Christian Loehle
2025-04-16 12:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-15 10:00 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] cpufreq/sched: Set need_freq_update in ignore_dl_rate_limit() Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-16 12:26 ` Christian Loehle
2025-04-15 10:02 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] cpufreq: Rename __resolve_freq() to clamp_and_resolve_freq() Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-15 10:04 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] cpufreq: Avoid using inconsistent policy->min and policy->max Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-16 12:39 ` Christian Loehle
2025-04-16 12:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-18 10:18 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2025-04-18 19:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-18 22:21 ` Sultan Alsawaf
2025-04-19 10:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-04-15 10:05 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] cpufreq: Eliminate clamp_and_resolve_freq() Rafael J. Wysocki
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=6171293.lOV4Wx5bFT@rjwysocki.net \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sultan@kerneltoast.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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