From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, luca.abeni@santannapisa.it,
claudio@evidence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it,
bristot@redhat.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org,
tkjos@android.com, joelaf@google.com, andresoportus@google.com,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
patrick.bellasi@arm.com, juri.lelli@arm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: [RFD PATCH 4/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all CPUs when deciding next freq
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:08:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170324140900.7334-5-juri.lelli@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170324140900.7334-1-juri.lelli@arm.com>
No assumption can be made upon the rate at which frequency updates get
triggered, as there are scheduling policies (like SCHED_DEADLINE) which
don't trigger them so frequently.
Remove such assumption from the code.
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
---
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 9 ++++-----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index da67a1cf91e7..40f30373b709 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -233,14 +233,13 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
* If the CPU utilization was last updated before the previous
* frequency update and the time elapsed between the last update
* of the CPU utilization and the last frequency update is long
- * enough, don't take the CPU into account as it probably is
- * idle now (and clear iowait_boost for it).
+ * enough, reset iowait_boost, as it probably is not boosted
+ * anymore now.
*/
delta_ns = last_freq_update_time - j_sg_cpu->last_update;
- if (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC) {
+ if (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC)
j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost = 0;
- continue;
- }
+
if (j_sg_cpu->flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT)
return policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
--
2.10.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-24 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-24 14:08 [RFD PATCH 0/5] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Juri Lelli
2017-03-24 14:08 ` [RFD PATCH 1/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make use of DEADLINE utilization signal Juri Lelli
2017-03-24 14:08 ` [RFD PATCH 2/5] sched/deadline: move cpu frequency selection triggering points Juri Lelli
2017-03-24 14:08 ` [RFD PATCH 3/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make worker kthread be SCHED_DEADLINE Juri Lelli
2017-03-27 16:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-27 17:01 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-27 17:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-27 17:13 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-27 17:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-27 18:09 ` Mark Brown
2017-03-30 15:50 ` Vikram Mulukutla
2017-03-30 20:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-31 7:26 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-27 18:05 ` Mark Brown
2017-03-28 9:29 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-03-28 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-24 14:08 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2017-03-29 22:41 ` [RFD PATCH 4/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all CPUs when deciding next freq Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-30 8:58 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-30 13:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2017-03-30 20:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-31 7:31 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-31 9:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-31 9:16 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-24 14:09 ` [RFD PATCH 5/5] sched/deadline: make bandwidth enforcement scale-invariant Juri Lelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170324140900.7334-5-juri.lelli@arm.com \
--to=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=andresoportus@google.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tkjos@android.com \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®