[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180522213113.GA40506@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:41:53 -0700
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google.)" <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] schedutil: Allow cpufreq requests to be made even
when kthread kicked
On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 05:27:11PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:42:05 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> > On 22-05-18, 13:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >> So below is my (compiled-only) version of the $subject patch, obviously based
> >> >> on the Joel's work.
> >> >>
> >> >> Roughly, what it does is to move the fast_switch_enabled path entirely to
> >> >> sugov_update_single() and take the spinlock around sugov_update_commit()
> >> >> in the one-CPU case too.
> >
> > [cut]
> >
> >> >
> >> > Why do you assume that fast switch isn't possible in shared policy
> >> > cases ? It infact is already enabled for few drivers.
> >
> > I hope that fast_switch is not used with devfs_possible_from_any_cpu set in the
> > one-CPU policy case, as that looks racy even without any patching.
>
> Which would be the only case in which sugov_update_single() would run
> on a CPU that is not the target.
>
> And running sugov_update_single() concurrently on two different CPUs
> for the same target is a no-no, as we don't prevent concurrent updates
> from occurring in that path.
>
> Which means that the original patch from Joel will be sufficient as
> long as we ensure that sugov_update_single() can only run on one CPU
> at a time.
Since target CPU's runqueue lock is held, I don't see how we can run
sugov_update_single concurrently with any other CPU for single policy, so
protecting such race shouldn't be necessary.
Also the "if (work_in_progress)" check I added to the sugov_update_single
doesn't change the behavior of single policy from what it is in mainline
since we were doing the same thing in already sugov_should_update_freq.
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists