Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751476AbdFFSDx (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:03:53 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:50702 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751404AbdFFSDv (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 14:03:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 19:03:45 +0100 From: Patrick Bellasi To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Viresh Kumar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Steven Rostedt , Vincent Guittot , John Stultz , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Tim Murray , Andres Oportus , Joel Fernandes , Morten Rasmussen , Dietmar Eggemann , Chris Redpath , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J . Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: schedutil: reset sg_cpus's flags at IDLE enter Message-ID: <20170606180345.GB684@e110439-lin> References: <1488469507-32463-1-git-send-email-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <1488469507-32463-2-git-send-email-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20170606092651.GC5103@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2991 Lines: 82 On 06-Jun 17:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Viresh Kumar 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 Patrick Bellasi