[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190118224534.GC261387@google.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 14:45:34 -0800
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drivers: base: Add frequency constraint
infrastructure
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:32:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-01-19, 17:03, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:48:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > +static void fcs_update(struct freq_constraints *fcs, struct freq_pair *freq,
> > > + enum fc_event event)
> > > +{
> > > + mutex_lock(&fcs->lock);
> > > +
> > > + if (_fcs_update(fcs, freq, event)) {
> > > + if (fcs->callback)
> > > + schedule_work(&fcs->work);
> >
> > IIUC the constraints aren't applied until the callback is executed. I
> > wonder if a dedicated workqueue should be used instead of the system
> > one, to avoid longer delays from other kernel entities that might
> > 'misbehave'. Especially for thermal constraints we want a quick
> > response.
>
> I thought the system workqueue should be fast enough, it contains
> multiple threads which can all run in parallel and service this work.
Ok, I was still stuck at the old one thread per CPU model, where a
slow work would block other items in the same workqueue until it
finishes execution. After reading a bit through
Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst I agree that a system workqueue
is probably fast enough. It might be warranted though to use
system_highpri_wq here.
Cheers
Matthias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists