[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hKjgmnTtxD5nHZfixFCPVoFhG6H_VnUJUkhaJ4wJef-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:34:05 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 09:06:04AM -0800, Steve Muckle wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> >> > I think additional hooks such as enqueue/dequeue would be needed in
>> >> > RT/DL.
>
> That is what I reacted to mostly. Enqueue/dequeue hooks don't really
> make much sense for RT / DL.
>
>> Rafael's changes aren't specifying particular frequencies/capacities in
>> the scheduler hooks. They're just pokes to get cpufreq to run, in order
>> to eliminate cpufreq's timers.
>>
>> My concern above is that pokes are guaranteed to keep occurring when
>> there is only RT or DL activity so nothing breaks.
>
> The hook in their respective tick handler should ensure stuff is called
> sporadically and isn't stalled.
I've updated the patch in the meantime
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8283431/).
Should I move the RT/DL hooks to task_tick_rt/dl(), respectively?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists