Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> My concern above is that pokes are guaranteed to keep occurring when
>>> > there is only RT or DL activity so nothing breaks.
>>
>> The hook in their respective tick handler should ensure stuff is called
>> sporadically and isn't stalled.
>
> But that's only true if the RT/DL tasks happen to be running when the
> tick arrives right?
>
> Couldn't we have RT/DL activity which doesn't overlap with the tick? And
> if no CFS tasks happen to be executing on that CPU, we'll never trigger
> the cpufreq update. This could go on for an arbitrarily long time
> depending on the periodicity of the work.

I'm thinking that two additional hooks in enqueue_task_rt/dl() might
help here.  Then, we will hit either the tick or enqueue and that
should do the trick.

Peter, what do you think?

Rafael