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 S1755670AbdIGSLC (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:11:02 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]:34549 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751639AbdIGSLA (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:11:00 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6HC006FggHW4bpA17K8ct1Q0YYo7F0EjNawD6nOxW0O1OFvYDRAs5Ia8k2Vqj/r9qAxAO0zg==
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RESEND v2 0/2] Prevent cpufreq update for only task on
 rq that sleeps
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, kernel-team@android.com
References: <20170903201542.2929-1-joelaf@google.com>
 <CAJWu+oruywqKwDPxwbmLzBrBGXRWPyuR+vE+itoycY3sDVW32Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Message-ID: <069bbd75-f1f8-f30b-cd2a-2f143a065c66@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:10:58 -0700
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: <CAJWu+oruywqKwDPxwbmLzBrBGXRWPyuR+vE+itoycY3sDVW32Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/07/2017 09:14 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> I'm planning to rebase this series on Linus's master and post it
> again, but just checking any thoughts about it?
> 
> Just to add more context, the reason for not updating the frequency:
> 
> - When a last dequeue of a sleeping task happens, it is sufficient to
> update utilization without updating the frequency because if other
> CPUs are busy then their updates will consider the utilization of the
> idle CPU in the shared policy unless sufficient time has passed.
> 
> - If the last dequeue of a sleeping task happens while all other CPUs
> in the cluster are idle, then the cluster will likely enter
> cluster-idle soon.

To clarify - when you say "last dequeue of a sleeping task happens" 
above, you're referring to the dequeue of the last task running on the 
CPU, correct? I.e. the CPU is about to go idle?

It's been a while since I've looked at this area so would like to hold 
off for a rebased version to review in further detail. But I think the 
concept is valid.

thanks,
steve