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 S1754892AbcC3Tfz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:35:55 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:33838 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753181AbcC3Tfy (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:35:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:35:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: move cpufreq hook to
 update_cfs_rq_load_avg()
Message-ID: <20160330193544.GD407@worktop>
References: <1458606068-7476-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org>
 <56F91D56.4020007@arm.com>
 <56F95D10.4070400@linaro.org>
 <56F97856.4040804@arm.com>
 <56F98832.3030207@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56F98832.3030207@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:38:26PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> Without covering all the paths where CFS utilization changes it's
> possible to have to wait up to a tick to act on some changes, since the
> tick is the only guaranteed regularly-occurring instance of the hook.
> That's an unacceptable amount of latency IMO...

Note that even with your patches that might still be the case. Remote
wakeups might not happen on the destination CPU at all, so it might not
be until the next tick (which always happens locally) that we'll
'observe' the utilization change brought with the wakeups.

We could force all the remote wakeups to IPI the destination CPU, but
that comes at a significant performance cost.