On 20-12-17, 16:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > So I ended up with the below (on top of Juri's cpufreq-dl patches).
Nice :) There are two things that I noticed in your tree. Firstly, there is no need of the following patch as we shouldn't have the problem mentioned in the commit anymore: 38e19dbe1286 cpufreq: schedutil: ignore sugov kthreads And maybe we can apply the below patch after that (only compile tested). -------------------------8<------------------------- From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:52:50 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq/schedutil: Call sugov_get_util() only when required sugov_update_shared() doesn't use the updated values of max, util_cfs and util_dl, unless we try to find the next frequency by calling sugov_next_freq_shared() and so there is no need to call it directly from sugov_update_shared(). Rather postpone it until the time sugov_next_freq_shared() is called for one of the CPUs that share the policy. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> --- kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 4 +--- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c index ab84d2261554..f2f4df26b954 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c @@ -315,8 +315,7 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time) unsigned long j_util, j_max; s64 delta_ns; - if (j_sg_cpu != sg_cpu) - sugov_get_util(j_sg_cpu); + sugov_get_util(j_sg_cpu); /* * If the CFS CPU utilization was last updated before the @@ -354,7 +353,6 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock); - sugov_get_util(sg_cpu); sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags); sg_cpu->last_update = time;