Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:13:36 +0100 | From | Juri Lelli <> | Subject | Re: [RFD PATCH 3/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make worker kthread be SCHED_DEADLINE |
| |
On 27/03/17 19:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, March 27, 2017 06:01:34 PM Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 27/03/17 18:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:08:58PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > > Worker kthread needs to be able to change frequency for all other > > > > threads. > > > > > > > > Make it special, just under STOP class. > > > > > > *yuck* ;-) > > > > > > > Eh, I know. :/ > > > > > So imagine our I2C/SPI bus is 'busy' and its mutex taken, then this > > > 'soecial' task will need to boost it. Now add BWI to your thinking and > > > shudder. > > > > > > > Currently that kthread is FIFO already, so boosting still applies. Not as > > bad as in the BWI case though. More thinking required. > > > > > > > > On IRC broonie mentioned that: > > > > > > - most PMIC operations are fire and forget (no need to wait for a > > > response). > > > - PMIC 'packets' are 'small'. > > > - SPI has the possibility to push stuff on the queue. > > > > > > Taken together this seems to suggest we can rework cpufreq drivers to > > > function in-context, either directly push the packet on the bus if > > > available, or queue it and let whoever owns it sort it without blocking. > > > > > > It might be possible to rework/augment I2C to also support pushing stuff > > > on a queue. > > > > > > > > > So if we can make all that work, we can do away with this horrible > > > horrible kthread. Which is, IMO, a much better solution. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Right. This is more a schedutil (cpufreq) problem though, IMHO. Even if > > I agree that what you are proposing is way more clean (and here I > > actually assume it's feasible at all), I fear it will take quite some > > time to get reworked. > > Why do you think so? >
It simply seemed a major rework to me. :)
| |