[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANRm+CzwN-2nTNCyYTxkb92YXZTucOk1GPUi8u7J_X7Bhk9KGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 21:33:47 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: don't trigger cpufreq update w/o real
rt/deadline tasks running
Hi Peterz,
2016-04-21 20:33 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 09:09:43AM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> >> Sometimes .update_curr hook is called w/o tasks actually running, it is
>> >> captured by:
>> >>
>> >> u64 delta_exec = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
>> >>
>> >> We should not trigger cpufreq update in this case for rt/deadline
>> >> classes, and this patch fix it.
>
>> I add a print to print when delta_exec is zero for rt class, something
>
> So its zero, so what?
>
>> like below:
>
>> watchdog/5-48 [005] d... 568.449105: update_curr_rt: rt
>> delta_exec is zero
>> watchdog/5-48 [005] d... 568.449111: <stack trace>
>> => put_prev_task_rt
>> => pick_next_task_idle
>
> So we'll go idle, but as of this point we're still running the rt task.
>
> So your Changelog is actively wrong, the tasks _are_ still running,
> albeit not for very much longer.
Thanks for your pointing out, I will update the changelog as we
discuss in IRC. :-)
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists