LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency requests
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 08:45:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180509064530.GA1681@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180509045425.GA158882@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 08/05/18 21:54, Joel Fernandes wrote:

[...]

> Just for discussion sake, is there any need for work_in_progress? If we can
> queue multiple work say kthread_queue_work can handle it, then just queuing
> works whenever they are available should be Ok and the kthread loop can
> handle them. __cpufreq_driver_target is also protected by the work lock if
> there is any concern that can have races... only thing is rate-limiting of
> the requests, but we are doing a rate limiting, just not for the "DL
> increased utilization" type requests (which I don't think we are doing at the
> moment for urgent DL requests anyway).
> 
> Following is an untested diff to show the idea. What do you think?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> - Joel
> 
> ----8<---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index d2c6083304b4..862634ff4bf3 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ struct sugov_policy {
>  	struct			mutex work_lock;
>  	struct			kthread_worker worker;
>  	struct task_struct	*thread;
> -	bool			work_in_progress;
>  
>  	bool			need_freq_update;
>  };
> @@ -92,16 +91,8 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
>  	    !cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs(sg_policy->policy))
>  		return false;
>  
> -	if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
> -		return false;
> -
>  	if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update)) {
>  		sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
> -		/*
> -		 * This happens when limits change, so forget the previous
> -		 * next_freq value and force an update.
> -		 */
> -		sg_policy->next_freq = UINT_MAX;
>  		return true;
>  	}
>  
> @@ -129,7 +120,6 @@ static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
>  		policy->cur = next_freq;
>  		trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
>  	} else {
> -		sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
>  		irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);

Isn't this potentially introducing unneeded irq pressure (and doing the
whole wakeup the kthread thing), while the already active kthread could
simply handle multiple back-to-back requests before going to sleep?

Best,

- Juri

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-09  6:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-07 14:43 Claudio Scordino
2018-05-08  6:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08 12:32   ` Claudio Scordino
2018-05-08 20:40     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  4:54   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  6:45     ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2018-05-09  6:54       ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09  7:01         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:05           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:22             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:41               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:23             ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-09  8:25               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:41                 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-09  6:55       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:06       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:30         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:40           ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09  9:02             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  9:28               ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09 10:34                 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:51           ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  9:06             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  9:39               ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  9:48                 ` 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=20180509064530.GA1681@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
    --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency requests' \
    /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

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).