From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753116AbdK3PpN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:45:13 -0500
Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56406 "EHLO
        foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751811AbdK3PpL (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 30 Nov 2017 10:45:11 -0500
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:45:06 +0000
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while
 running RT/DL tasks
Message-ID: <20171130154506.GD31247@e110439-lin>
References: <20171130114723.29210-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20171130114723.29210-3-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20171130131759.GB9903@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171130131759.GB9903@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 30-Nov 14:17, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 30/11/17 11:47, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > @@ -340,6 +349,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >  	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
> >  	unsigned long util, max;
> >  	unsigned int next_f;
> > +	bool rt_mode;
> >  
> >  	sugov_get_util(&util, &max, sg_cpu->cpu);
> >  
> > @@ -353,17 +363,27 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >  		sg_cpu->flags = 0;
> >  		goto done;
> >  	}
> > -	sg_cpu->flags = flags;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * While RT/DL tasks are running we do not want FAIR tasks to
> > +	 * overwrite this CPU's flags, still we can update utilization and
> > +	 * frequency (if required/possible) to be fair with these tasks.
> > +	 */
> > +	rt_mode = task_has_dl_policy(current) ||
> > +		  task_has_rt_policy(current) ||
> > +		  (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL);
> > +	if (rt_mode)
> > +		sg_cpu->flags |= flags;
> > +	else
> > +		sg_cpu->flags = flags;
> >  
> >  	sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
> >  	sg_cpu->last_update = time;
> >  
> >  	if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) {
> > -		if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL)
> > -			next_f = sg_policy->policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> > -		else
> > -			next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time);
> > -
> > +		next_f = rt_mode
> > +			? sg_policy->policy->cpuinfo.max_freq
> > +			: sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time);
> >  		sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> 
> Aren't we already at max_freq at this point (since an RT/DL task is
> running)? Do we need to trigger a frequency update?

I think that's required to cover the first time we enter rt_mode in
order to jump to max OPP.

If we are already at max OPP, sugov_update_commit() will just bail out
without doing anything.

Am I missing something?

> 
> Best,
> 
> Juri

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi