Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 May 2018 00:01:13 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency
 requests
Message-ID: <20180509070113.GB52784@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <1525704215-8683-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com>
 <20180508065435.bcht6dyb3rpp6gk5@vireshk-i7>
 <20180509045425.GA158882@joelaf.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <20180509064530.GA1681@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180509065449.c5zotxqmuyatjgfd@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180509065449.c5zotxqmuyatjgfd@vireshk-i7>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 12:24:49PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 09-05-18, 08:45, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 08/05/18 21:54, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Isn't this potentially introducing unneeded irq pressure (and doing the
> > whole wakeup the kthread thing), while the already active kthread could
> > simply handle multiple back-to-back requests before going to sleep?
> 
> And then we may need more instances of the work item and need to store
> a different value of next_freq with each work item, as we can't use
> the common one anymore as there would be races around accessing it ?

Exactly. I think it also doesn't make sense to over write an already
committed request either so better to store them separate (?). After the
"commit", that previous request is done..

- Joel