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 S1755825AbdIGS6c (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:58:32 -0400
Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com ([209.85.220.171]:37363 "EHLO
        mail-qk0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751639AbdIGS6b (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:58:31 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QByzZZ0FlIQ8E4jUSZHhbZB7tHgTfsSsZQ36wZTzc3GeXLsINhZXE3nNOVSRkC95P3e7H+8/Oix85fu3LcIHjY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <069bbd75-f1f8-f30b-cd2a-2f143a065c66@google.com>
References: <20170903201542.2929-1-joelaf@google.com> <CAJWu+oruywqKwDPxwbmLzBrBGXRWPyuR+vE+itoycY3sDVW32Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <069bbd75-f1f8-f30b-cd2a-2f143a065c66@google.com>
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:58:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJWu+oq0_3kTbPqLXWHPg+yMLbJqmC7753R6wCVUp=_pS+m9Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RESEND v2 0/2] Prevent cpufreq update for only task on
 rq that sleeps
To: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        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
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

Hi Steve,

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com> wrote:
> 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?

Yes that's right, sorry for my poor choice of words. I am referring to
dequeue of a task that is DEQUEUE_SLEEP and is the only task on the
RQ.

> 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.

Sure and thanks for making time for the review!

-Joel