lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: don't trigger cpufreq update w/o real rt/deadline tasks running
From
Date
On 4/21/2016 3:09 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-04-21 6:28 GMT+08:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>:
>> On 4/21/2016 12:24 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> 2016-04-20 22:01 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
>>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:32:35AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 18, 2016 01:51:24 PM Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>>>>> Sometimes update_curr() is called w/o tasks actually running, it is
>>>>>> captured by:
>>>>>> u64 delta_exec = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
>>>>>> We should not trigger cpufreq update in this case for rt/deadline
>>>>>> classes, and this patch fix it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
>>>>> The signed-off-by tag should agree with the From: header. One way to
>>>>> achieve
>>>>> that is to add an extra From: line at the start of the changelog.
>>>>>
>>>>> That said, this looks like a good catch that should go into 4.6 to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter, what do you think?
>>>> I'm confused by the Changelog. *what* ?
>>> Sometimes .update_curr hook is called w/o tasks actually running, it is
>>> captured by:
>>>
>>> u64 delta_exec = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
>>>
>>> We should not trigger cpufreq update in this case for rt/deadline
>>> classes, and this patch fix it.
>>
>> That's what you wrote in the changelog, no need to repeat that.
>>
>> I guess Peter is asking for more details, though. I actually would like to
>> get some more details here too. Like an example of when the situation in
>> question actually happens.
> I add a print to print when delta_exec is zero for rt class, something
> like below:
>
> watchdog/5-48 [005] d... 568.449095: update_curr_rt: rt
> delta_exec is zero
> watchdog/5-48 [005] d... 568.449104: <stack trace>
> => pick_next_task_rt
> => __schedule
> => schedule
> => smpboot_thread_fn
> => kthread
> => ret_from_fork
> watchdog/5-48 [005] d... 568.449105: update_curr_rt: rt
> delta_exec is zero
> watchdog/5-48 [005] d... 568.449111: <stack trace>
> => put_prev_task_rt
> => pick_next_task_idle
> => __schedule
> => schedule
> => smpboot_thread_fn
> => kthread
> => ret_from_fork
> watchdog/6-56 [006] d... 568.510094: update_curr_rt: rt
> delta_exec is zero
> watchdog/6-56 [006] d... 568.510103: <stack trace>
> => pick_next_task_rt
> => __schedule
> => schedule
> => smpboot_thread_fn
> => kthread
> => ret_from_fork
> watchdog/6-56 [006] d... 568.510105: update_curr_rt: rt
> delta_exec is zero
> watchdog/6-56 [006] d... 568.510111: <stack trace>
> => put_prev_task_rt
> => pick_next_task_idle
> => __schedule
> => schedule
> => smpboot_thread_fn
> => kthread
> => ret_from_fork
> [...]

And the statement in your changelog follows from this I suppose. How
does it follow, exactly?

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-04-21 13:21    [W:0.152 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site