[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190304135810.rq2ojnbn5vezrab3@queper01-lin>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:58:12 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Wang, Vincent (王争)
<Vincent.Wang@...soc.com>
Cc: Zhang, Chunyan (张春艳)
<Chunyan.Zhang@...soc.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 答复: [PATCH V4] sched/cpufreq: initialize iowait_boost_max and
iowait_boost with cpu capacity
On Monday 04 Mar 2019 at 07:35:04 (+0000), Wang, Vincent (王争) wrote:
> Did you mean the value of arch_scale_cpu_capacity() is changed in
> cpu_capacity_store()?
Yes, there's that, but more importantly topology_normalize_cpu_scale()
is called during boot. With printks() in the relevant functions, the
boot log on my system with two CPUFreq policies looks like this:
[ 2.393085] init_cpu_capacity_callback: policy0
[ 2.397714] sugov_start: policy0
[ 2.403734] init_cpu_capacity_callback: policy1
[ 2.407901] topology_normalize_cpu_scale: done
[ 2.412581] sugov_start: policy1
So, the lack of order of sugov_start() and topology_normalize_cpu_scale()
is a problem, I think.
> If so, I can restart schedutil governor after new capacity is updated.
Hmm, that feels a bit overkill, but that should at least be a correct
way of updating sg_cpu->{min, max} in a non-racy way. And CPU capacity
changes are infrequent, so the overhead of re-starting the governor
isn't a major issue, I suppose.
You could also update the values in sugov_get_util() at the cost of a
small overhead to compute 'min'. I'm not sure what's preferable since
we wanted to avoid that kind of overhead in the first place ...
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists