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 S1754925AbdKATfn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:35:43 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:53422 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751628AbdKATfl (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 1 Nov 2017 15:35:41 -0400
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+RTreltRPp4TdVO/5dultNFB3JelnKJbT32N7A421hY5VNqRXdsYw8FT8v18fnURLv4WCS6RQ==
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] sched/fair: Skip frequency update if CPU about to
 idle
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada" <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        "Cc: Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Cc: Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Patrick Bellasi" <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Brendan Jackman" <brendan.jackman@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Chris Redpath" <Chris.Redpath@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Atish Patra" <atish.patra@oracle.com>,
        "Cc: Dietmar Eggemann" <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        "Cc: Morten Ramussen" <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        "Cc: Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        "Cc: Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Cc: EAS Dev" <eas-dev@lists.linaro.org>,
        "Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
References: <20171028095941.4773-1-joelaf@google.com>
 <20171028095941.4773-3-joelaf@google.com> <20171030120709.GO4240@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJWu+opNBs2u2FbXBKGtYeW2ipR7o-NUCOA95zh3xo-pqmd5mw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Message-ID: <6ed7d641-4fa2-77e1-9294-64d51193c786@google.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 12:35:37 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+opNBs2u2FbXBKGtYeW2ipR7o-NUCOA95zh3xo-pqmd5mw@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 10/30/2017 12:02 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Also, this more looks like a policy decision. Will it be better to
>> put that directly into schedutil? Like this:
>>
>>          if (cpu_idle())
>>                  "Don't change the freq";
>>
>> Will something like that work?
> 
> I thought about this and I think it wont work very well. In the
> dequeue path we're still running the task being dequeued so the CPU is
> not yet idle. What is needed here IMO is a notion that the CPU is
> possibly about to idle and we can get predict that from the dequeue
> path of the CFS class.
> 
> Also just looking at whether the CPU is currently idle or not in the
> governor doesn't help to differentiate between say the dequeue path /
> tick path. Both of which can occur when the CPU is not idle.
> 
> Any thoughts about this?

Also if it really is the case that this bit of policy is universally 
desirable, I'd think it is better to do this in the scheduler and avoid 
a needless trip through a fn pointer out to schedutil for performance 
reasons.