LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <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 <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency requests
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 02:02:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180509090259.GD76874@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180509084001.bghnwpv3a3xnuxce@vireshk-i7>

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:10:01PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 09-05-18, 10:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > How about this? Will use the latest request, and also doesn't do unnecessary
> > > irq_work_queue:
> 
> I almost wrote the same stuff before I went for lunch :)

Oh :)

> > > (untested)
> > > -----8<--------
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > index d2c6083304b4..6a3e42b01f52 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ struct sugov_policy {
> > >         struct                  mutex work_lock;
> > >         struct                  kthread_worker worker;
> > >         struct task_struct      *thread;
> > > -       bool                    work_in_progress;
> > > +       bool                    work_in_progress; /* Has kthread been kicked */
> > >
> > >         bool                    need_freq_update;
> > >  };
> > > @@ -92,9 +92,6 @@ 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;
> > > -
> > 
> > Why this change?
> > 
> > Doing the below is rather pointless if work_in_progress is set, isn't it?
> > 
> > You'll drop the results of it on the floor going forward anyway then AFAICS.
> > 
> > >         if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update)) {
> > >                 sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
> > >                 /*
> > > @@ -129,8 +126,11 @@ 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);
> > > +               /* work_in_progress helps us not queue unnecessarily */
> > > +               if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) {
> > > +                       sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
> > > +                       irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
> > > +               }
> > >         }
> > >  }
> 
> Right, none of the above changes are required now.

I didn't follow what you mean the changes are not required? I was developing
against Linus mainline. Also I replied to Rafael's comment in the other
thread.

> 
> > > @@ -381,13 +381,23 @@ sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, unsigned int flags)
> > >  static void sugov_work(struct kthread_work *work)
> > >  {
> > >         struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
> > > +       unsigned int freq;
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * Hold sg_policy->update_lock just enough to handle the case where:
> > > +        * if sg_policy->next_freq is updated before work_in_progress is set to
> > > +        * false, we may miss queueing the new update request since
> > > +        * work_in_progress would appear to be true.
> > > +        */
> > > +       raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> > > +       freq = sg_policy->next_freq;
> > > +       sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
> > > +       raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> 
> One problem we still have is that sg_policy->update_lock is only used
> in the shared policy case and not in the single CPU per policy case,
> so the race isn't solved there yet.

True.. I can make the single CPU case acquire the update_lock very briefly
around sugov_update_commit call in sugov_update_single.

Also I think the lock acquiral from sugov_work running in the kthread context should be a raw_spin_lock_irqsave..

thanks,

- Joel

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-09  9:03 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
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 [this message]
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=20180509090259.GD76874@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com \
    --to=joel@joelfernandes.org \
    --cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.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=rafael@kernel.org \
    --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).