lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFD PATCH 3/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make worker kthread be SCHED_DEADLINE
Date
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?

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-27 19:19    [W:0.621 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site