Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1291799

Re: [RFCv6 PATCH 07/10] sched/fair: jump to max OPP when crossing UP threshold

From Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFCv6 PATCH 07/10] sched/fair: jump to max OPP when crossing UP threshold
Date 2015-12-15 03:50 +0100
Message-ID <qFNQB-6ms-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <qDGqd-4EB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qDGqd-4EB-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qEtTY-3va-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


Hi Juri,

On 12/11/2015 03:12 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> @@ -2895,6 +2934,8 @@ void scheduler_tick(void)
>> >  	trigger_load_balance(rq);
>> >  #endif
>> >  	rq_last_tick_reset(rq);
>> > +
>> > +	sched_freq_tick(cpu);
> We are not holding rq->lock anymore at this points, and this collides
> with comment in update_cpu_capacity_request(). Can't you just move this
> up before raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)?

My thinking in putting it last was to have it after the possible
periodic load balance, so that we don't initiate a frequency change only
to have to modify the frequency again immediately afterwards.

Thinking more about it, the way we currently have the policy defined
there's no concern with having it earlier since sched_freq_tick only
causes the frequency to go to fmax (or do nothing). If we modify the
policy so that sched_freq_tick can cause arbitrary frequency changes
then I think this may need more thought.

thanks,
Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [RFCv6 PATCH 07/10] sched/fair: jump to max OPP when crossing UP  threshold Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2015-12-15 03:50 +0100

csiph-web