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> <CAJWu+oreQRCAkBhNQ-n6BPjYsdOL074ff8551sF3r7OxsseEVQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+oreQRCAkBhNQ-n6BPjYsdOL074ff8551sF3r7OxsseEVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 11:29:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Xf29qsiBSUit7xoVpxzLnoBT9vZ+0JBGN2bFefDBKG4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cros_ec_spi: Even though we're RT priority, don't bump
 cpu freq
To:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
        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

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:55 AM Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

OK, so I think the summary is:

1. There are enough external dependencies that are currently in the
works that it makes sense for those to land first without trying to
cram my patch to cros_ec in.

2. Maybe, as part of the work that's already going on, someone will
add an API that I can use.  If so then I can write my patch once that
lands.

3. If nobody adds an API then I could look at adding the API myself
once everything else is settled.

4. It looks as if the patch you mentioned originally [1] that allows
userspace to just fully disable uclamp for RT tasks will land
eventually (if we're stuck for a short term solution we can pick the
existing patch).  I believe Chrome OS will use that to just fully
disable the default boosting for RT tasks across our system and (if
needed) add boosts on a case-by-case basis.  Once we do that, the
incentive to land a patch for cros_ec will be mostly gone and probably
we could consider my patch abandoned.  While it would technically
still be sane to land it won't have any real-world benefit.


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200511154053.7822-1-qais.yousef@arm.com