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 S1752689AbdDKOAc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:00:32 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:35198 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751350AbdDKOA3 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:00:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170411103556.GC13627@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1489058244.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <834d098efe029ee687bac7690bb482e9263a766b.1489058244.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <1836427.bpauTYz19k@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170411103556.GC13627@vireshk-i7>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:00:28 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: A1wb5FJPgzoFu6BENMGuvyFVtJg
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iQ4X=Vt54EvJce9R9rPhtVqvznte8=HoQ_UOAZ1fQj2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/9] sched: cpufreq: remove smp_processor_id() in remote paths
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@gmail.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, eas-dev@lists.linaro.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 29-03-17, 23:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 09, 2017 05:15:15 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>> >     if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) {
>> >             next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
>> >     } else {
>> > -           sugov_get_util(&util, &max);
>> > +           sugov_get_util(&util, &max, hook->cpu);
>>
>> Why is this not racy?
>
> Why would reading the utilization values be racy? The only dynamic value here is
> "util_avg" and I am not sure if reading it is racy.
>
> But, this whole routine has races which I ignored as we may end up updating
> frequency simultaneously from two threads.

Those races aren't there if we don't update cross-CPU, which is my point. :-)

>> >             sugov_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, &util, &max);
>> >             next_f = get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
>> >     }
>> > @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>> >     unsigned long util, max;
>> >     unsigned int next_f;
>> >
>> > -   sugov_get_util(&util, &max);
>> > +   sugov_get_util(&util, &max, hook->cpu);
>> >
>>
>> And here?
>>
>> >     raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>
> The lock prevents the same here though.
>
> So, if we are going to use this series, then we can use the same update-lock in
> case of single cpu per policies as well.

No, we can't.

The lock is unavoidable in the mulit-CPU policies case, but there's no
way I will agree on using a lock in the single-CPU case.

Thanks,
Rafael