[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jiEkdA6HQEtabpcOPmsXDOKov46gZ=FyXjFmNf+9E9LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:04:54 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "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 7:52 PM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> But that's only true if the RT/DL tasks happen to be running when the
> tick arrives right?
>
> Couldn't we have RT/DL activity which doesn't overlap with the tick? And
> if no CFS tasks happen to be executing on that CPU, we'll never trigger
> the cpufreq update. This could go on for an arbitrarily long time
> depending on the periodicity of the work.
I'm thinking that two additional hooks in enqueue_task_rt/dl() might
help here. Then, we will hit either the tick or enqueue and that
should do the trick.
Peter, what do you think?
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists