[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170705045012.GM3532@vireshk-i7>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:20:12 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE
enter
On 04-07-17, 18:34, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/sched/cpufreq.h
> index d2be2cc..36ac8d2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched/cpufreq.h
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT (1U << 0)
> #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL (1U << 1)
> #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT (1U << 2)
> +#define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE (1U << 3)
>
> #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL (SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT | SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index eaba6d6..004ae18 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -304,6 +304,12 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>
> sg_cpu->util = util;
> sg_cpu->max = max;
> +
> + /* CPU is entering IDLE, reset flags without triggering an update */
> + if (unlikely(flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE)) {
> + sg_cpu->flags = 0;
> + goto done;
> + }
Why is it important to have the above diff at all ? For example we aren't doing
similar stuff in sugov_update_single() and that will go on and try to change the
frequency if rate_limit_us time is over since last update.
And also why is it important to write 0 to sg_cpu->flags ? What wouldn't work if
we set sg_cpu->flags to SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE in this case ? i.e. Just the below
statement should be good for us.
> sg_cpu->flags = flags;
>
> sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
> @@ -318,6 +324,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> }
>
> +done:
> raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> }
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> index 0c00172..a844c91 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ pick_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf
> put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> update_idle_core(rq);
> schedstat_inc(rq->sched_goidle);
> +
> + /* kick cpufreq (see the comment in kernel/sched/sched.h). */
> + cpufreq_update_this_cpu(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE);
> +
This looks correct.
Can we completely avoid the utilization contribution of the CPUs which have gone
idle? Right now we avoid them with help of (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC). Can we
instead check this SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE flag ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists