lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks
From
Date
On 02/09/2016 12:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> One concern I had was, given that the lone scheduler update hook is in
>>> CFS, is it possible for governor updates to be stalled due to RT or DL
>>> task activity?
>>
>> I don't think they may be completely stalled, but I'd prefer Peter to
>> answer that as he suggested to do it this way.
>
> In any case, if that concern turns out to be significant in practice, it may
> be addressed like in the appended modification of patch [1/3] from the $subject
> series.
>
> With that things look like before from the cpufreq side, but the other sched
> classes also get a chance to trigger a cpufreq update. The drawback is the
> cpu_clock() call instead of passing the time value from update_load_avg(), but
> I guess we can live with that if necessary.
>
> FWIW, this modification doesn't seem to break things on my test machine.
>
...
> Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/rt.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -2212,6 +2212,9 @@ static void task_tick_rt(struct rq *rq,
>
> update_curr_rt(rq);
>
> + /* Kick cpufreq to prevent it from stalling. */
> + cpufreq_kick();
> +
> watchdog(rq, p);
>
> /*
> Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -1197,6 +1197,9 @@ static void task_tick_dl(struct rq *rq,
> {
> update_curr_dl(rq);
>
> + /* Kick cpufreq to prevent it from stalling. */
> + cpufreq_kick();
> +
> /*
> * Even when we have runtime, update_curr_dl() might have resulted in us
> * not being the leftmost task anymore. In that case NEED_RESCHED will

I think additional hooks such as enqueue/dequeue would be needed in
RT/DL. The task tick callbacks will only run if a task in that class is
executing at the time of the tick. There could be intermittent RT/DL
task activity in a frequency domain (the only task activity there, no
CFS tasks) that doesn't happen to overlap the tick. Worst case the task
activity could be periodic in such a way that it never overlaps the tick
and the update is never made.

thanks,
steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-02-10 02:21    [W:0.471 / U:12.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site