linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency requests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 10:41:47 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency
 requests

On 09/05/18 10:25, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On 09/05/18 10:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 12:24:49PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> >> On 09-05-18, 08:45, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> >> > On 08/05/18 21:54, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> >> > 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?
> >> >>
> >> >> And then we may need more instances of the work item and need to store
> >> >> a different value of next_freq with each work item, as we can't use
> >> >> the common one anymore as there would be races around accessing it ?
> >> >
> >> > Exactly. I think it also doesn't make sense to over write an already
> >> > committed request either so better to store them separate (?). After the
> >> > "commit", that previous request is done..
> >>
> >> Why is it?
> >>
> >> In the non-fast-switch case the "commit" only means queuing up an
> >> irq_work.  Which BTW is one of the reasons for having work_in_progress
> >> even if your kthread can handle multiple work items in one go.
> >>
> >> You may try to clear work_in_progress in sugov_irq_work() instead of
> >> in sugov_work(), though.
> >>
> >> BTW, I'm not sure if the comment in sugov_irq_work() still applies.  Juri?
> >
> > It doesn't anymore. sugov kthreads are now being "ignored". Should have
> > remove it with the DL set of changes, sorry about that.
> 
> No worries, you can still do that. ;-)

Indeed! Done. :)