Re: [PATCH v3 1/7][Resend] cpufreq: Rework the scheduler hooks for triggering updates
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Wed Mar 09 2016 - 09:03:08 EST
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Commit fe7034338ba0 (cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering
>> utilization update callbacks) added cpufreq_update_util() to be
>> called by the scheduler (from the CFS part) on utilization updates.
>> The goal was to allow CFS to pass utilization information to cpufreq
>> and to trigger it to evaluate the frequency/voltage configuration
>> (P-state) of every CPU on a regular basis.
>> However, the last two arguments of that function are never used by
>> the current code, so CFS might simply call cpufreq_trigger_update()
>> instead of it (like the RT and DL sched classes).
>> For this reason, drop the last two arguments of cpufreq_update_util(),
>> rename it to cpufreq_trigger_update() and modify CFS to call it.
>> Moreover, since the utilization is not involved in that now, rename
>> data types, functions and variables related to cpufreq_trigger_update()
>> to reflect that (eg. struct update_util_data becomes struct
>> freq_update_hook and so on).
>> -void cpufreq_update_util(u64 time, unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
>> +void cpufreq_trigger_update(u64 time)
> So I'm not convinced about this. Yes the utility of this function is
> twofold. One to allow in-situ frequency adjustments where possible, but
> two, also very much to allow using the statistics already gathered.
> Sure, 4.5 will not have any such users, but who cares.
> And I'm really not too worried about 'random' people suddenly using it
> to base work on. Either people are already participating in these
> discussions and will thus be aware of whatever concerns there might be,
> or we'll tell them when they post their code.
> And when they don't participate and don't post their code, I really
> don't care about them anyway :-)