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:   Mon, 4 Mar 2019 13:58:12 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?V2FuZywgVmluY2VudCAo546L5LqJKQ==?= 
        <Vincent.Wang@unisoc.com>
Cc:     =?utf-8?B?WmhhbmcsIENodW55YW4gKOW8oOaYpeiJsyk=?= 
        <Chunyan.Zhang@unisoc.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?562U5aSNOiBbUEFUQ0ggVjRdIHNj?=
 =?utf-8?Q?hed=2Fcpufreq=3A_initializ?= =?utf-8?Q?e?= iowait_boost_max and
 iowait_boost with cpu capacity
Message-ID: <20190304135810.rq2ojnbn5vezrab3@queper01-lin>
References: <1550831866-32749-1-git-send-email-chunyan.zhang@unisoc.com>
 <20190222105957.wxhlcmoag5f3i4fi@queper01-lin>
 <9099990618e242e1bab77ce3f9d9b1e3@BJMBX02.spreadtrum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9099990618e242e1bab77ce3f9d9b1e3@BJMBX02.spreadtrum.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Monday 04 Mar 2019 at 07:35:04 (+0000), Wang, Vincent (王争) wrote:
> Did you mean the value of arch_scale_cpu_capacity() is changed in
> cpu_capacity_store()?

Yes, there's that, but more importantly topology_normalize_cpu_scale()
is called during boot. With printks() in the relevant functions, the
boot log on my system with two CPUFreq policies looks like this:

[    2.393085] init_cpu_capacity_callback: policy0
[    2.397714] sugov_start: policy0
[    2.403734] init_cpu_capacity_callback: policy1
[    2.407901] topology_normalize_cpu_scale: done
[    2.412581] sugov_start: policy1

So, the lack of order of sugov_start() and topology_normalize_cpu_scale()
is a problem, I think.

> If so, I can restart schedutil governor after new capacity is updated.

Hmm, that feels a bit overkill, but that should at least be a correct
way of updating sg_cpu->{min, max} in a non-racy way. And CPU capacity
changes are infrequent, so the overhead of re-starting the governor
isn't a major issue, I suppose.

You could also update the values in sugov_get_util() at the cost of a
small overhead to compute 'min'. I'm not sure what's preferable since
we wanted to avoid that kind of overhead in the first place ...

Thanks,
Quentin