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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4237890.zlzv5C60QP@aspire.rjw.lan>
References: <20180518185501.173552-1-joel@joelfernandes.org>
 <20180522113844.5rz3skjeck57arft@vireshk-i7> <CAJZ5v0hP+gCiLa+6YvKHaj7u-DuRfmVq_vjFRMj6CnVktJRxVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4237890.zlzv5C60QP@aspire.rjw.lan>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 17:27:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0henS+LZ64JQwrXR8LrY7xzcsnnYS7AoBuR9dNaC4mTRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] schedutil: Allow cpufreq requests to be made even when
 kthread kicked
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <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>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Joel Fernandes (Google.)" <joelaf@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:42:05 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > On 22-05-18, 13:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> So below is my (compiled-only) version of the $subject patch, obviously based
>> >> on the Joel's work.
>> >>
>> >> Roughly, what it does is to move the fast_switch_enabled path entirely to
>> >> sugov_update_single() and take the spinlock around sugov_update_commit()
>> >> in the one-CPU case too.
>
> [cut]
>
>> >
>> > Why do you assume that fast switch isn't possible in shared policy
>> > cases ? It infact is already enabled for few drivers.
>
> I hope that fast_switch is not used with devfs_possible_from_any_cpu set in the
> one-CPU policy case, as that looks racy even without any patching.

Which would be the only case in which sugov_update_single() would run
on a CPU that is not the target.

And running sugov_update_single() concurrently on two different CPUs
for the same target is a no-no, as we don't prevent concurrent updates
from occurring in that path.

Which means that the original patch from Joel will be sufficient as
long as we ensure that sugov_update_single() can only run on one CPU
at a time.