On 11-04-17, 16:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
> > On 29-03-17, 23:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 09, 2017 05:15:15 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct
> >> > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >> > if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) {
> >> > next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> >> > } else {
> >> > - sugov_get_util(&util, &max);
> >> > + sugov_get_util(&util, &max, hook->cpu);
> >>
> >> Why is this not racy?
> >
> > Why would reading the utilization values be racy? The only dynamic value
> > here is
> > "util_avg" and I am not sure if reading it is racy.
> >
> > But, this whole routine has races which I ignored as we may end up updating
> > frequency simultaneously from two threads.
>
> Those races aren't there if we don't update cross-CPU, which is my point. :-)
Of course. There are no races without this series.
> >> > sugov_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, &util, &max);
> >> > next_f = get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
> >> > }
> >> > @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct
> >> > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >> > unsigned long util, max;
> >> > unsigned int next_f;
> >> >
> >> > - sugov_get_util(&util, &max);
> >> > + sugov_get_util(&util, &max, hook->cpu);
> >> >
> >>
> >> And here?
> >>
> >> > raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> >
> > The lock prevents the same here though.
> >
> > So, if we are going to use this series, then we can use the same
> > update-lock in
> > case of single cpu per policies as well.
>
> No, we can't.
>
> The lock is unavoidable in the mulit-CPU policies case, but there's no
> way I will agree on using a lock in the single-CPU case.
How do you suggest to avoid the locking here then ? Some atomic
variable read/write as done in cpufreq_governor.c ?
--
viresh
