From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752608AbcBLNnR (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:43:17 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:33799 "EHLO mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752424AbcBLNnP (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:43:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <3071836.JbNxX8hU6x@vostro.rjw.lan> <56B93548.9090006@linaro.org> <5387313.xAhVpzgZCg@vostro.rjw.lan> <56BA8C29.4090905@linaro.org> <20160211115959.GI6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <56BCBF7C.2080404@linaro.org> <20160211173033.GP6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <56BCD864.6030207@linaro.org> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:43:13 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dQwy86zJHNlQFhSUWRzy44SRGW8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Steve Muckle , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Srinivas Pandruvada , Viresh Kumar , Juri Lelli , Thomas Gleixner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Steve Muckle wrote: >> On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> My concern above is that pokes are guaranteed to keep occurring when >>>> > there is only RT or DL activity so nothing breaks. >>> >>> The hook in their respective tick handler should ensure stuff is called >>> sporadically and isn't stalled. >> >> But that's only true if the RT/DL tasks happen to be running when the >> tick arrives right? >> >> Couldn't we have RT/DL activity which doesn't overlap with the tick? And >> if no CFS tasks happen to be executing on that CPU, we'll never trigger >> the cpufreq update. This could go on for an arbitrarily long time >> depending on the periodicity of the work. > > I'm thinking that two additional hooks in enqueue_task_rt/dl() might > help here. Then, we will hit either the tick or enqueue and that > should do the trick. > > Peter, what do you think? In any case I posted a v9 with those changes (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8290791/). Again, it doesn't appear to break things. If the enqueue hooks are bad (unwanted at all or in wrong places), please let me know. Thanks, Rafael