From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751957AbdGMMyz (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 08:54:55 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:38108 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751165AbdGMMyy (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 08:54:54 -0400 Cc: Sudeep Holla , Dietmar Eggemann , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Russell King - ARM Linux , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support To: Viresh Kumar , Peter Zijlstra References: <20170706094948.8779-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <22f004af-0158-8265-2da5-34743f294bfb@arm.com> <12829054.TWIodSo4bb@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170711060106.GL2928@vireshk-i7> <45224055-7bf1-243b-9366-0f2d3442ef59@arm.com> <20170712040917.GG17115@vireshk-i7> <20170712083125.at7jic63ozoxoqap@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170712092755.GD1679@vireshk-i7> From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 13:54:49 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170712092755.GD1679@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/07/17 10:27, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 12-07-17, 10:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> So the problem with the thread is two-fold; one the one hand we like the >> scheduler to directly set frequency, but then we need to schedule a task >> to change the frequency, which will change the frequency and around we >> go. >> >> On the other hand, there's very nasty issues with PI. This thread would >> have very high priority (otherwise the SCHED_DEADLINE stuff won't work) >> but that then means this thread needs to boost the owner of the i2c >> mutex. And that then creates a massive bandwidth accounting hole. >> >> >> The advantage of using an interrupt driven state machine is that all >> those issues go away. >> >> But yes, whichever way around you turn things, its crap. But given the >> hardware its the best we can do. > > Thanks for the explanation Peter. > > IIUC, it will take more time to change the frequency eventually with > the interrupt-driven state machine as there may be multiple bottom > halves involved here, for supply, clk, etc, which would run at normal > priorities now. And those were boosted currently due to the high > priority sugov thread. And we are fine with that (from performance > point of view) ? > > Coming back to where we started from (where should we call > arch_set_freq_scale() from ?). > > I think we would still need some kind of synchronization between > cpufreq core and the cpufreq drivers to make sure we don't start > another freq change before the previous one is complete. Otherwise > the cpufreq drivers would be required to have similar support with > proper locking in place. > Good point, but with firmware interface we are considering fro fast-switch, the firmware can override the previous request if it's not yet started. So I assume that's fine and expected ? > And if the core is going to get notified about successful freq changes > (which it should IMHO), Is that mandatory for even fast-switching ? -- Regards, Sudeep