Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] sched: power: Remove power capacity hints forkworker threads

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 05:40:38PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:14:25PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On 10/14/2013 6:33 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 06:19:14PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > >> Removing power hints for kworker threads enables easier use of
> > >> workqueues in the power driver late callback. That would otherwise
> > >> lead to an endless loop unless it is prevented in the power driver.
> > >
> > > There's many kworker users; some of them actually consume lots of
> > > cputime. Therefore how did you come to the conclusion that excepting all
> > > users was the better choice of a little added complexity in the one
> > > place where it actually matters?
> > 
> > .. and likely only for a very few architectures
> > 
> > x86, and I suspect modern ARM, can change frequency synchronously.
> > (using an instruction or maybe two or three for ARM)
> 
> It should be possible to implement synchronous frequency changes on most
> modern ARM platforms. It is a bit more than a few instructions to change
> frequency though particularly for the current cpufreq drivers.
> 
> cpufreq drivers, like the one for ARM TC2, uses the clock framework to
> manage clocks. clk_set_rate() is allowed to sleep which won't work if we
> call it from scheduler context. The clock framework will need a look if
> it doesn't provide a very fast synchronous alternative to clk_set_rate()
> to change frequency and we want to use it for scheduler driven frequency
> scaling.
> 
> cpufreq has pre- and post-change notifiers so the current TC2 clock driver
> waits (yields) in its clk_set_rate() implementation until the change has
> happened to ensure that the post-change notifier happens at the right
> time. Since clk_set_rate() is allowed to sleep other tasks may be
> running while waiting for the change to complete. This may be true for
> other clock drivers as well.
> 
> AFAICT, there is no way to reuse the existing cpufreq drivers in a
> sensible way for scheduler driven frequency scaling. It should be
> possible to have very fast frequency changes on ARM but it is not the
> way it is currently done.


Note that you still have preemption disabled in your late callback from
finish_task_switch(). There's no way you can wait/yield/whatever from
there. Nor is that really sane.

Just say no to the existing cruft ?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/