On 17/05/18 15:50, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-05-18, 09:00, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > On 16/05/18 15:45, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -382,13 +391,24 @@ sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook,
> > > u64 time, unsigned int flags)
> > > static void sugov_work(struct kthread_work *work)
> > > {
> > > struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct
> > > sugov_policy, work);
> > > + unsigned int freq;
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Hold sg_policy->update_lock shortly to handle the case where:
> > > + * incase sg_policy->next_freq is read here, and then updated by
> > > + * sugov_update_shared just before work_in_progress is set to false
> > > + * here, we may miss queueing the new update.
> > > + */
> > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
> > > + freq = sg_policy->next_freq;
> > > + sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
> > > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
> >
> > OK, we queue the new request up, but still we need to let this kthread
> > activation complete and then wake it up again to service the request
> > already queued, right? Wasn't what Claudio proposed (service back to
> > back requests all in the same kthread activation) better from an
> > overhead pow?
>
> We would need more locking stuff in the work handler in that case and
> I think there maybe a chance of missing the request in that solution
> if the request happens right at the end of when sugov_work returns.
Mmm, true. Ideally we might want to use some sort of queue where to
atomically insert requests and then consume until queue is empty from
sugov kthread.
But, I guess that's going to be too much complexity for an (hopefully)
corner case.
