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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1658527 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE enter

Started byViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
First post2017-06-06 11:30 +0200
Last post2017-06-06 20:10 +0200
Articles 3 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE  enter Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-06-06 11:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE enter "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2017-06-06 18:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE  enter Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> - 2017-06-06 20:10 +0200

#1658527 — Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE enter

FromViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date2017-06-06 11:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE enter
Message-ID<tPiYi-6PD-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 02-03-17, 15:45, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index e2ed46d..739b29d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -3653,6 +3653,7 @@ static inline unsigned long rlimit_max(unsigned int limit)
>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT	(1U << 0)
>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL	(1U << 1)
>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT	(1U << 2)
> +#define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE	(1U << 3)
>  
>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL	(SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT | SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL)
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index fd46593..084a98b 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -281,6 +281,12 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>  
>  	raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>  
> +	/* CPU is entering IDLE, reset flags without triggering an update */
> +	if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE) {
> +		sg_cpu->flags = 0;
> +		goto done;
> +	}
> +
>  	sg_cpu->util = util;
>  	sg_cpu->max = max;
>  	sg_cpu->flags = flags;
> @@ -293,6 +299,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>  		sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
>  	}
>  
> +done:
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> index 0c00172..a844c91 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ pick_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf
>  	put_prev_task(rq, prev);
>  	update_idle_core(rq);
>  	schedstat_inc(rq->sched_goidle);
> +
> +	/* kick cpufreq (see the comment in kernel/sched/sched.h). */
> +	cpufreq_update_this_cpu(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE);
> +
>  	return rq->idle;
>  }

I was discussing about almost the same problem with Vincent today and we were
convinced to write exactly the same patch to solve that. And then I saw this old
thread again :)

Why did this thread die completely ?

Can we at least get the patches which don't have any objections merged
separately first ?

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1658885 — Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE enter

From"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date2017-06-06 18:00 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE enter
Message-ID<tPp3I-2jT-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1658527
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 02-03-17, 15:45, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>> index e2ed46d..739b29d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>> @@ -3653,6 +3653,7 @@ static inline unsigned long rlimit_max(unsigned int limit)
>>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT     (1U << 0)
>>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL     (1U << 1)
>>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT (1U << 2)
>> +#define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE   (1U << 3)
>>
>>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL  (SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT | SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> index fd46593..084a98b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> @@ -281,6 +281,12 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>>
>>       raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>>
>> +     /* CPU is entering IDLE, reset flags without triggering an update */
>> +     if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE) {
>> +             sg_cpu->flags = 0;
>> +             goto done;
>> +     }
>> +
>>       sg_cpu->util = util;
>>       sg_cpu->max = max;
>>       sg_cpu->flags = flags;
>> @@ -293,6 +299,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>>               sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
>>       }
>>
>> +done:
>>       raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>>  }
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
>> index 0c00172..a844c91 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
>> @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ pick_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf
>>       put_prev_task(rq, prev);
>>       update_idle_core(rq);
>>       schedstat_inc(rq->sched_goidle);
>> +
>> +     /* kick cpufreq (see the comment in kernel/sched/sched.h). */
>> +     cpufreq_update_this_cpu(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE);
>> +
>>       return rq->idle;
>>  }
>
> I was discussing about almost the same problem with Vincent today and we were
> convinced to write exactly the same patch to solve that. And then I saw this old
> thread again :)
>
> Why did this thread die completely ?

Because nobody followed up? :-)

> Can we at least get the patches which don't have any objections merged
> separately first ?

Yes, we can in general, but someone needs to "shepherd" them and I've
been traveling lately.

So, if there's anything that appears non-controversial and looks like
it could be applied, the best way to make that happen would be to
resend it.

Thanks,
Rafael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1659029

FromPatrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Date2017-06-06 20:10 +0200
Message-ID<tPr5x-3PW-59@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1658885
On 06-Jun 17:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 02-03-17, 15:45, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> >> index e2ed46d..739b29d 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> >> @@ -3653,6 +3653,7 @@ static inline unsigned long rlimit_max(unsigned int limit)
> >>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT     (1U << 0)
> >>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL     (1U << 1)
> >>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT (1U << 2)
> >> +#define SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE   (1U << 3)
> >>
> >>  #define SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL  (SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT | SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> index fd46593..084a98b 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> @@ -281,6 +281,12 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >>
> >>       raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> >>
> >> +     /* CPU is entering IDLE, reset flags without triggering an update */
> >> +     if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE) {
> >> +             sg_cpu->flags = 0;
> >> +             goto done;
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >>       sg_cpu->util = util;
> >>       sg_cpu->max = max;
> >>       sg_cpu->flags = flags;
> >> @@ -293,6 +299,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >>               sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> >>       }
> >>
> >> +done:
> >>       raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> >> index 0c00172..a844c91 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/idle_task.c
> >> @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ pick_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf
> >>       put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> >>       update_idle_core(rq);
> >>       schedstat_inc(rq->sched_goidle);
> >> +
> >> +     /* kick cpufreq (see the comment in kernel/sched/sched.h). */
> >> +     cpufreq_update_this_cpu(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IDLE);
> >> +
> >>       return rq->idle;
> >>  }
> >
> > I was discussing about almost the same problem with Vincent today and we were
> > convinced to write exactly the same patch to solve that. And then I saw this old
> > thread again :)
> >
> > Why did this thread die completely ?
> 
> Because nobody followed up? :-)
> 
> > Can we at least get the patches which don't have any objections merged
> > separately first ?
> 
> Yes, we can in general, but someone needs to "shepherd" them and I've
> been traveling lately.
> 
> So, if there's anything that appears non-controversial and looks like
> it could be applied, the best way to make that happen would be to
> resend it.

You right guys, I should had done it since some time.
Will do the best to resend it in few days.

Cheers Patrick

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web