[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210215063008.hsdkrs4bw7wt3wye@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:00:08 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Yue Hu <zbestahu@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Yue Hu <zbestahu@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>, zhangwen@...ong.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't use the limits_changed flag
any more
On 14-02-21, 11:44, Yue Hu wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:14:03 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > This may be running in parallel with sugov_update_next_freq() on a
> > different CPU, so the latter may clear need_freq_update right after it
> > has been set here unless I'm overlooking something.
>
> Whether this logic is also happening for limits_changed in
> sugo_should_update_freq() or not?
It is but it shouldn't have any side effects as we calculate the next
frequency after cleaning the limits_changed flag. Your patch would
have been fine, but it is not anymore because of commit 23a881852f3e
("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update if need_freq_update is
set").
It made a considerable change after which your patch adds a bug. With
23a881852f3e, need_freq_update is updated/cleared after the next
frequency is calculated, while earlier it was cleared before it. And
so even with the race condition taking place, there were no issues.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists