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: <6ed7d641-4fa2-77e1-9294-64d51193c786@google.com>
References: <20171028095941.4773-1-joelaf@google.com> <20171028095941.4773-3-joelaf@google.com>
 <20171030120709.GO4240@vireshk-i7> <CAJWu+opNBs2u2FbXBKGtYeW2ipR7o-NUCOA95zh3xo-pqmd5mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <6ed7d641-4fa2-77e1-9294-64d51193c786@google.com>
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2017 22:44:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJWu+oqJcddpDG2aYGSRD7WL7hFbN+S7zp5YZsfcfA1Fci+Y_A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] sched/fair: Skip frequency update if CPU about to idle
To:     Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada" <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        "Cc: Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Cc: Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Patrick Bellasi" <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Brendan Jackman" <brendan.jackman@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Chris Redpath" <Chris.Redpath@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Atish Patra" <atish.patra@oracle.com>,
        "Cc: Dietmar Eggemann" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "Cc: Morten Ramussen" <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        "Cc: Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Cc: EAS Dev" <eas-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 12:02 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, this more looks like a policy decision. Will it be better to
>>> put that directly into schedutil? Like this:
>>>
>>>          if (cpu_idle())
>>>                  "Don't change the freq";
>>>
>>> Will something like that work?
>>
>>
>> I thought about this and I think it wont work very well. In the
>> dequeue path we're still running the task being dequeued so the CPU is
>> not yet idle. What is needed here IMO is a notion that the CPU is
>> possibly about to idle and we can get predict that from the dequeue
>> path of the CFS class.
>>
>> Also just looking at whether the CPU is currently idle or not in the
>> governor doesn't help to differentiate between say the dequeue path /
>> tick path. Both of which can occur when the CPU is not idle.
>>
>> Any thoughts about this?
>
>
> Also if it really is the case that this bit of policy is universally
> desirable, I'd think it is better to do this in the scheduler and avoid a
> needless trip through a fn pointer out to schedutil for performance reasons.

I agree.

Peter, what do you think? Are you Ok with the approach of this patch
(preventing of the cpufreq update call during dequeue)?

thanks,

- Joel

From 1582893621292735026@xxx Wed Nov 01 19:36:32 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1582495113361800894
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums