Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1386909
| Path | csiph.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod |
|---|---|
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> |
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs |
| Date | Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:30:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rrWeR-49v-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rpQdz-yF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rpZqz-7Qn-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <rrUd5-2DB-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| X-Original-To | Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> |
| Dkim-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=cX6nd3a6dc+5j61GPPmSlBXHbWNF4241BxB/HTDpnb4=; b=LNLjmF/b/X1WrsJcd+D4ukdOAOLa4u2RYSlnyWEz85OtFZJFzbBZD/b27mPAX8sjst DSINUwJq3G2+r76Zo3UiDcVL/oVleLY4HK8XUSSn1mF+ASbZCq+bn6Q4tKmz6p0eRyAi NlKg+K7TwJg35FxjDNquQUwh20hDtSsFC4NUefODTmwjHOjzbtDDnRXVKgEhCDBaqR/d EYtDkqz9SC4pXBU5WmCKGymV5Gi8qgw6uOiUGZdmMUPRDXPngB7Jsd3xocphNI8MTZsr xpwKBESqnjxi/9RGRoCnvLShDUgKiP/RbZ2k/ztfU8xNkSaEMbk3twU/T+JweuAHRCq1 yhdw== |
| X-Google-Dkim-Signature | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=cX6nd3a6dc+5j61GPPmSlBXHbWNF4241BxB/HTDpnb4=; b=IfJ7kglxXGrviVCn+ot7qbJvuIWGCmZLLVr6A0CtNsmsZpobyiTHzfjZexpyT3xzbz NsLkCI2f4QrYr9U2v4srSq6JUJitP/IG4UpV9fBzKDMaHUwRh8a/UPSTmsVLWYNLQ3iK 1rxYDxETVcv7ujEh8HikwQr8HsRqIsrNsZbGaK7pU0wFUmJ40HUQGPIaAhBXHY8jSOY+ j45qTGgsazEo1Mxe/kejboazNkm2YUNK0n+rrDeq6fj9BkNyDaklsVaKj/uEeVzXY2Qb Zq3BKBkMf1U+mOCO6BpGaS5ZaT/sNu7kMHeOQa/XTnL4V0yl+ZODW5ujs7tlnEEw/21G Mt9A== |
| X-Gm-Message-State | AOPr4FVh8LBSVnaysYvAz307Jr4JC7TE+Upv1rLx/lL1X7GnW3c4pVK6AYBk/OtIkiSRhx/o/kmRe9OS4MVcLQ== |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| X-Received | by 10.112.73.203 with SMTP id n11mr13039632lbv.35.1461619681758; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:28:01 -0700 (PDT) |
| X-Google-Sender-Auth | 9oIwILK6hBu2ZVEkxCZcGQc2awE |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
| Sender | robomod@news.nic.it |
| List-ID | <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org> |
| X-Mailing-List | linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org |
| Approved | robomod@news.nic.it |
| Lines | 67 |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
| X-Original-Cc | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com> |
| X-Original-Date | Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:28:01 +0200 |
| X-Original-Message-ID | <CAJZ5v0iDzNuR5KN7Zwd5dq8hxUmLYeuwZzFahPhPrpwPgpq1qQ@mail.gmail.com> |
| X-Original-References | <1461119969-10371-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org> <1975350.dnmiS2ECMV@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160425191755.GB18811@sky.smuckle.net> |
| X-Original-Sender | linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org |
| Xref | csiph.com linux.kernel:1386909 |
Show key headers only | View raw
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:26:06PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> You could have added a cover [0/4] message which would have made it easier
>> to reply to the entire series in general. Let me do it here.
>
> Will add that next time.
>
>> Doing it the way it is done in this series would be fine by me in general
>> (up to a few more or less minor comments), but it is still unclear to me
>> how much of a difference these changes would make in terms of improved
>> response times etc.
>
> I spent some time last week constructing a test case where the
> benefits could be seen. A task which was previously low utilization
> wakes on CPU0 and becomes CPU bound. Just after that, a new task is
> spawned on CPU0. The initial task utilization is high so ideally we
> would like to see the frequency immediately rise, but in my test it
> does not occur until the next tick. There is 7ms of delay in the trace
> I've saved.
>
> Unfortunately these patches alone will not address it. There are a
> couple other issues which get in the way (which is why I didn't
> respond here right away). Let me spend some more time on those and see
> how it goes.
I see.
>> > In preparation for the scheduler cpufreq callback happening
>> > on remote CPUs, add support for this in the dbs governors.
>> > The dbs governors make assumptions about the callback occurring
>> > on the CPU being updated.
>>
>> While the above is generally correct, it would be nice to say more about what
>> happens in the patch. Like:
>>
>> "To that end, add a CPU number field to struct cpu_dbs_info and modify
>> dbs_update_util_handler() to schedule IRQ works on target CPUs rather than on
>> the local one only."
>
> I'm happy to do that if it is what you'd like to see, but just
> curious, isn't it really just restating the patch contents?
It is somewhat, but that's for the benefit of whoever reads the git
history without necessarily looking and the changes themselves
upfront.
> ...
>> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
>> > index 3e0eb7c54903..1d5f4857ff80 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
>> > @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ struct cpu_dbs_info {
>> > unsigned int prev_load;
>> > struct update_util_data update_util;
>> > struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs;
>> > + int cpu;
>> > };
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to add the cpu field to struct update_util_data and set
>> it from cpufreq_add_update_util_hook()?
>>
>> That would allow you to avoid adding the cpu field to struct sugov_cpu in the
>> second patch at least.
>
> Sure, will do.
Thanks!
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-04-20 04:40 +0200
[RFC PATCH 3/4] intel_pstate: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-04-20 04:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] intel_pstate: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-04-20 14:40 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] intel_pstate: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-04-21 04:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] intel_pstate: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-04-25 23:40 +0200
[RFC PATCH 2/4] cpufreq: schedutil: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-04-20 04:40 +0200
[RFC PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: call cpufreq hook for remote wakeups Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-04-20 04:50 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2016-04-20 14:30 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> - 2016-04-25 21:20 +0200
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-04-25 23:30 +0200
csiph-web