[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210219093551.bykqhjk6xvs4kszi@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2021 15:05:51 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Yue Hu <zbestahu@...il.com>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
huyue2@...ong.com, zbestahu@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't consider freq reduction to
busy CPU if need_freq_update is set
On 19-02-21, 16:20, Yue Hu wrote:
> However, we will skip the update if need_freq_update is not set.
Not really, we will update freq periodically nevertheless, around
every 10ms or something..
> And do the update if need_freq_update is set.
Yeah, that breaks the periodic cycle to attend to some urgent request.
> Note that there are unnecessary fast switch check and spin lock/unlock
> operations in freq skip path.
Maybe, I am not sure. We are all up for optimizations if there are
any.
> If we consider unnecessary behaviors above, then we should return right
> away rather than continue to execute following code.
As I said earlier, we may end up updating the frequency even if
need_freq_update is unset.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists