Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200610151818.1.I666ecd9c6f3c6405bd75831a21001b8109b6438c@changeid>
 <20200612125250.7bwjfnxhurdf5bwj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAD=FV=WuYZRO=sv4ODr0SFk0gTtvCW0dNQXbFGrBDqRgjYv-jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200619153851.vigshoae3ahiy63x@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAD=FV=XursDFUWL=aGUwFgXc4BugUMdT5e+Fwwo5w2gReCjUaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200623164021.lcrnwpli7wdlsn5i@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAJWu+ooXdgqSGisZXnHBtYLo9oQBiaNR=HhKseBN+YFGz-L6Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200624165500.idrugfgplqgi654v@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAJWu+oqHUq6fvkfRgAx4qx8x1dm-J-h6moeVskCU3gkRybCPqQ@mail.gmail.com> <20200624175236.nblndmg6dfq2vr2u@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200624175236.nblndmg6dfq2vr2u@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:55:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJWu+oreQRCAkBhNQ-n6BPjYsdOL074ff8551sF3r7OxsseEVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cros_ec_spi: Even though we're RT priority, don't bump
 cpu freq
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@collabora.com>,
        hsinyi@chromium.org, Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@chromium.org>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, ctheegal@codeaurora.org,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:52 PM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/24/20 13:35, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > Doing the in-kernel opt-out via API should be fine, I think. But this will
> > > need to be discussed in the wider circle. It will already clash with this for
> > > example
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200619172011.5810-1-qais.yousef@arm.com/
> >
> > Have not yet looked closer at that patch, but are you saying this
> > patch clashes with that work? Sorry I am operating on 2 hours of sleep
> > here.
>
> The series is an optimization to remove the uclamp overhead from the scheduler
> fastpath until the userspace uses it. It introduces a static key that is
> disabled by default and will cause uclamp logic not to execute in the fast
> path. Once the userspace starts using util clamp, which we detect by either
>
>         1. Changing uclamp value of a task with sched_setattr()
>         2. Modifying the default sysctl_sched_util_clamp_{min, max}
>         3. Modifying the default cpu.uclamp.{min, max} value in cgroup
>
> If we start having in-kernel users changing uclamp value this means drivers
> will cause the system to opt-in into uclamp automatically even if the
> userspace doesn't actually use it.
>
> I think we can solve this by providing a special API to opt-out safely. Which
> is the right thing to do anyway even if we didn't have this clash.

Makes sense, thanks.

 - Joel