Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1348798
| From | Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit |
| Date | 2016-03-03 06:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r8uj8-2tq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r84I2-18B-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <r84I3-18B-49@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 02-03-16, 03:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Use the observation that cpufreq_update_util() is only called > by the scheduler with rq->lock held, so the callers of > cpufreq_set_update_util_data() can use synchronize_sched() > instead of synchronize_rcu() to wait for cpufreq_update_util() > to complete. Moreover, if they are updated to do that, > rcu_read_(un)lock() calls in cpufreq_update_util() might be > replaced with rcu_read_(un)lock_sched(), respectively, but > those aren't really necessary, because the scheduler calls > that function from RCU-sched read-side critical sections > already. > > In addition to that, if cpufreq_set_update_util_data() checks > the func field in the struct update_util_data before setting > the per-CPU pointer to it, the data->func check may be dropped > from cpufreq_update_util() as well. > > Make the above changes to reduce the overhead from > cpufreq_update_util() in the scheduler paths invoking it > and to make the cleanup after removing its callbacks less > heavy-weight somewhat. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > > Supersedes https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8443191/ Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> -- viresh
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-03-02 03:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-03-03 06:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-03-03 12:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Reduce cpufreq_update_util() overhead a bit Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-03 14:10 +0100
csiph-web