Re: [PATCH v6 13/14] sched/topology: Make Energy Aware Scheduling depend on schedutil

From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@arm.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
	adharmap@codeaurora.org, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>,
	Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	currojerez@riseup.net, Javi Merino <javi.merino@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/14] sched/topology: Make Energy Aware Scheduling depend on schedutil
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 10:02:04 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180907090202.6cmbm7wyr2uumkhu@queper01-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4111046.18AB1cFGcU@aspire.rjw.lan>

On Friday 07 Sep 2018 at 10:56:12 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 10:52:01 AM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:38:44 PM CEST Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > > 
> > > On Thursday 06 Sep 2018 at 11:18:55 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I'm not a particular fan of notifiers to be honest and you don't need
> > > > to add an extra chain just in order to be able to register a callback
> > > > from a single user.
> > > 
> > > Right. I agree there are alternatives to using notifiers. I used them
> > > because they're existing infrastructure, and because they let me do what
> > > I want without too much troubles, which are two important points.
> > > 
> > > > That can be achieved with a single callback
> > > > pointer too, but also you could just call a function exported by the
> > > > scheduler directly from where in the cpufreq code it needs to be
> > > > called.
> > > 
> > > Are you thinking about something comparable to what is done in
> > > cpufreq_add_update_util_hook() (kernel/sched/cpufreq.c) for example ?
> > > That would probably have the same drawback as my current implementation,
> > > that is that the scheduler is notified of _all_ governor changes, not
> > > only changes to/from sugov although this is the only thing we care about
> > > for EAS.
> > 
> > Well, why don't you implement it as something like "if the governor changes
> > from sugov to something else (or the other way around), call this function
> > from the scheduler"?

Yes that work too ...

> That said, governors are stopped and started in a few cases other than just
> changing the governor, so maybe you want the EAS side to be notified whenever
> sugov is stopped and started after all?

Right, so sugov_start/sugov_stop could be an option in this case ... And
that would leave the CPUFreq core untouched. I'll try to write something :-)

Thanks,
Quentin