[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56FC807C.80204@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:42:20 -0700
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: move cpufreq hook to
update_cfs_rq_load_avg()
On 03/30/2016 12:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:38:26PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
>> Without covering all the paths where CFS utilization changes it's
>> possible to have to wait up to a tick to act on some changes, since the
>> tick is the only guaranteed regularly-occurring instance of the hook.
>> That's an unacceptable amount of latency IMO...
>
> Note that even with your patches that might still be the case. Remote
> wakeups might not happen on the destination CPU at all, so it might not
> be until the next tick (which always happens locally) that we'll
> 'observe' the utilization change brought with the wakeups.
>
> We could force all the remote wakeups to IPI the destination CPU, but
> that comes at a significant performance cost.
What about only IPI'ing the destination when the utilization change is
known to require a higher CPU frequency?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists