[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171207050509.vfa64mbp23gnq547@vireshk-mac-ubuntu>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 10:35:09 +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>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while
running RT/DL tasks
On 30-11-17, 11:47, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 67339ccb5595..448f49de5335 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -262,6 +262,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> unsigned long util, max;
> unsigned int next_f;
> + bool rt_mode;
> bool busy;
>
> sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
> @@ -272,7 +273,15 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>
> busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
>
> - if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) {
> + /*
> + * While RT/DL tasks are running we do not want FAIR tasks to
> + * overvrite this CPU's flags, still we can update utilization and
> + * frequency (if required/possible) to be fair with these tasks.
> + */
> + rt_mode = task_has_dl_policy(current) ||
> + task_has_rt_policy(current) ||
> + (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL);
> + if (rt_mode) {
> next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> } else {
> sugov_get_util(&util, &max, sg_cpu->cpu);
> @@ -340,6 +349,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
> unsigned long util, max;
> unsigned int next_f;
> + bool rt_mode;
>
> sugov_get_util(&util, &max, sg_cpu->cpu);
>
> @@ -353,17 +363,27 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> sg_cpu->flags = 0;
> goto done;
> }
> - sg_cpu->flags = flags;
> +
> + /*
> + * While RT/DL tasks are running we do not want FAIR tasks to
> + * overwrite this CPU's flags, still we can update utilization and
> + * frequency (if required/possible) to be fair with these tasks.
> + */
> + rt_mode = task_has_dl_policy(current) ||
> + task_has_rt_policy(current) ||
> + (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL);
> + if (rt_mode)
> + sg_cpu->flags |= flags;
> + else
> + sg_cpu->flags = flags;
>
> sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
> sg_cpu->last_update = time;
>
> if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) {
> - if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL)
> - next_f = sg_policy->policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> - else
> - next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time);
> -
> + next_f = rt_mode
> + ? sg_policy->policy->cpuinfo.max_freq
> + : sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time);
> sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> }
Same here. There are pending comments from V2 which no one objected to
and I was looking to see those modifications here.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists