From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751868AbcBEDGV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:06:21 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f195.google.com ([209.85.217.195]:33384 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751788AbcBEDGT (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 4 Feb 2016 22:06:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160205025948.GE3068@vireshk>
References: <3705929.bslqXH980s@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<1529283.0IedZktI9q@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<20160204050954.GU3469@vireshk>
	<CAJZ5v0hWj4JgCh76Fg48ex3Svv7BUHR=9+RoA728R9aYU+12Pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160205025948.GE3068@vireshk>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 04:06:17 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hEHKQXTuaP8MfKSMlvvThW1ccwM
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iyJSuWkqrL8VuSbX8G5s2X+fYngQqi+eVrfVMkLrkmeA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/11] cpufreq: governor: Use common mutex for dbs_data protection
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 04-02-16, 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> >>
>> >> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
>> >> has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data.  However,
>> >> those mutexes are never used at the same time
>> >
>> > Why do you think so? I thought they can always be used in parallel.
>> >
>> > Consider 2 or more policies, one can have ondemand as the governor,
>> > whereas other one can have conservative.
>> >
>> > If CPUs go online/offline or if governors are switching in parallel,
>> > then cpufreq_governor_dbs() can very much run in parallel for ondemand
>> > and conservative.
>> >
>> > Or am I missing something here ?
>>
>> Well, so perhaps the changelog is inaccurate.
>>
>> However, what's wrong with using a single mutex then?
>
> You are killing the possibility of running the code faster. Consider
> this:
> - A 16 policy system with N CPUs in every policy (IBM has something
>   similar only :) )..
> - 4 policies using ondemand, 4 using conservative, 4 using powersave
>   and 4 with performance.
> - Now if we try to change governors for all of them in parallel, only
>   one will be done at a time and others have to wait for this
>   BIG-kernel lock.

And why is this a big problem, actually?  Why do we want the switching
of governors to be that efficient?

Thanks,
Rafael