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:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:39:36 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drivers: base: Add frequency constraint
 infrastructure
Message-ID: <20190122070936.jsjvivzplfpdweck@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1547197612.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <f3980beb6f2c02427d892a4bc4a04989544a3952.1547197612.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <20190118010305.GX261387@google.com>
 <20190118100234.kq37hc4ldujqvvrb@vireshk-i7>
 <20190118224534.GC261387@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190118224534.GC261387@google.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323-120-3dd1ac
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 18-01-19, 14:45, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:32:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 17-01-19, 17:03, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:48:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > +static void fcs_update(struct freq_constraints *fcs, struct freq_pair *freq,
> > > > +		       enum fc_event event)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&fcs->lock);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (_fcs_update(fcs, freq, event)) {
> > > > +		if (fcs->callback)
> > > > +			schedule_work(&fcs->work);
> > > 
> > > IIUC the constraints aren't applied until the callback is executed. I
> > > wonder if a dedicated workqueue should be used instead of the system
> > > one, to avoid longer delays from other kernel entities that might
> > > 'misbehave'. Especially for thermal constraints we want a quick
> > > response.
> > 
> > I thought the system workqueue should be fast enough, it contains
> > multiple threads which can all run in parallel and service this work.
> 
> Ok, I was still stuck at the old one thread per CPU model, where a
> slow work would block other items in the same workqueue until it
> finishes execution. After reading a bit through
> Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst I agree that a system workqueue
> is probably fast enough. It might be warranted though to use
> system_highpri_wq here.

Is this really that high priority stuff ? I am not sure.

-- 
viresh