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 S1752481AbdLFLi1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 6 Dec 2017 06:38:27 -0500
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33626 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752426AbdLFLi0 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 6 Dec 2017 06:38:26 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 11:38:21 +0000
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pm@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>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/rt: fast switch to maximum frequency when
 RT tasks are scheduled
Message-ID: <20171206113821.GO31247@e110439-lin>
References: <20171130114723.29210-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20171130114723.29210-5-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtCoUVoxhG5mem9fcf30VoQBUCMZr-CLkFVoKRMHr_=btQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCoUVoxhG5mem9fcf30VoQBUCMZr-CLkFVoKRMHr_=btQ@mail.gmail.com>
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

Hi Vincent,

On 06-Dec 10:39, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> On 30 November 2017 at 12:47, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:

[...]

> >  static void dequeue_task_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> > @@ -1564,6 +1564,9 @@ pick_next_task_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, struct rq_flags *rf)
> >
> >         p = _pick_next_task_rt(rq);
> >
> > +       /* Kick cpufreq (see the comment in kernel/sched/sched.h). */
> 
> p is null when there is no rt task to pick.
> You should test this condition before calling cpufreq_update_util

Mmm... for what I see, from the above function's implementation,
_pick_next_task_rt() is always returning a valid pointer to an RT
task.

The above call does a:

   p->se.exec_start = rq_clock_task(rq);

right before returning, and there is also a BUG_ON(!rt_se) in the
previous RT tasks scanning loop.

Am I missing something?

> > +       cpufreq_update_util(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT);
> > +
> >         /* The running task is never eligible for pushing */
> >         dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);

[...]

> > @@ -2317,6 +2323,9 @@ static void set_curr_task_rt(struct rq *rq)
> >
> >         p->se.exec_start = rq_clock_task(rq);
> >
> > +       /* Kick cpufreq (see the comment in kernel/sched/sched.h). */
> > +       cpufreq_update_util(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT);
> 
> Is this change linked to the "- when a task is set to be RT" in the
> commit message ?
> 
> I can't see a situation where this is call without the previous one.
> AFAICT, enqueue_task_rt will be called before each call to this
> function

Yeah, you right, in core.c the pattern seems to always be:

    if (queued)
            enqueue_task()
    if (running)
            set_curr_task()

I'll remove this chunk from the next version.

> 
> > +
> >         /* The running task is never eligible for pushing */
> >         dequeue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> >  }

Thanks for the review!

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi