[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180523101344.GB30909@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:13:44 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
claudio@...dence.eu.com, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Avoid missing updates for one-CPU
policies
On 23/05/18 11:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Commit 152db033d775 (schedutil: Allow cpufreq requests to be made
> even when kthread kicked) made changes to prevent utilization updates
> from being discarded during processing a previous request, but it
> left a small window in which that still can happen in the one-CPU
> policy case. Namely, updates coming in after setting work_in_progress
> in sugov_update_commit() and clearing it in sugov_work() will still
> be dropped due to the work_in_progress check in sugov_update_single().
>
> To close that window, rearrange the code so as to acquire the update
> lock around the deferred update branch in sugov_update_single()
> and drop the work_in_progress check from it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
I don't have a platform at hand where to test this. But, it looks OK to
me.
Reviewed-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Best,
- Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists