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 S1751780AbcBJO0e (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:26:34 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f195.google.com ([209.85.217.195]:33086 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750778AbcBJO0c (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 10 Feb 2016 09:26:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160210140315.GD11415@e106622-lin>
References: <3071836.JbNxX8hU6x@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<56B93548.9090006@linaro.org>
	<CAJZ5v0gJwLVezLTLwGX=GDrsGeH6X040JmOaW6_uX2XzQwO9mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5387313.xAhVpzgZCg@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<20160210123342.GA11415@e106622-lin>
	<CAJZ5v0gWV+Qc2CM6YN90=s+TE2HCDOZVCRH7nOrKFW+kGiOpDA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160210140315.GD11415@e106622-lin>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:26:31 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ofyl9kytcU4C_zgIQRDTdte1bmw
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jRSxZyKixTvOc3BDVxBLzx1HVeJhNEzX4UZA7txvEM9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
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 Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> On 10/02/16 14:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Rafael,
>> >
>> > On 09/02/16 21:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> +/**
>> >> + * cpufreq_update_util - Take a note about CPU utilization changes.
>> >> + * @util: Current utilization.
>> >> + * @max: Utilization ceiling.
>> >> + *
>> >> + * This function is called by the scheduler on every invocation of
>> >> + * update_load_avg() on the CPU whose utilization is being updated.
>> >> + */
>> >> +void cpufreq_update_util(unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     struct update_util_data *data;
>> >> +
>> >> +     rcu_read_lock();
>> >> +
>> >> +     data = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&cpufreq_update_util_data));
>> >> +     if (data && data->func)
>> >> +             data->func(data, cpu_clock(smp_processor_id()), util, max);
>> >
>> > Are util and max used anywhere?
>>
>> They aren't yet, but they will be.
>>
>> Maybe not in this cycle (it it takes too much time to integrate the
>> preliminary changes), but we definitely are going to use those
>> numbers.
>>
>
> Oh OK. However, I was under the impression that this set was only
> proposing a way to get rid of timers and use the scheduler as heartbeat
> for cpufreq governors. The governors' sample based approach wouldn't
> change, though. Am I wrong in assuming this?

Your assumption is correct.

The sample-based approach doesn't change at this time, simply to avoid
making too many changes in one go.

The next step, as I'm seeing it, would be to use the
scheduler-provided utilization in the governor computations instead of
the load estimation made by governors themselves.

> Also, is linux-pm/bleeding-edge the one I want to fetch to try this set out?

You can get it from there, but possibly with some changes unrelated to cpufreq.

You can also pull from the pm-cpufreq-test branch to get the cpufreq
changes only.

Apart from that, I'm going resend the $subject set with updated patch
[1/3] for completeness.

Thanks,
Rafael