Re: [PATCH v6 13/14] sched/topology: Make Energy Aware Scheduling depend on schedutil
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Sun Sep 09 2018 - 16:14:09 EST
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday 07 Sep 2018 at 10:52:01 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 4:38:44 PM CEST Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > Hi Rafael,
> > >
> > > On Thursday 06 Sep 2018 at 11:18:55 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > I'm not a particular fan of notifiers to be honest and you don't need
> > > > to add an extra chain just in order to be able to register a callback
> > > > from a single user.
> > >
> > > Right. I agree there are alternatives to using notifiers. I used them
> > > because they're existing infrastructure, and because they let me do what
> > > I want without too much troubles, which are two important points.
> > >
> > > > That can be achieved with a single callback
> > > > pointer too, but also you could just call a function exported by the
> > > > scheduler directly from where in the cpufreq code it needs to be
> > > > called.
> > >
> > > Are you thinking about something comparable to what is done in
> > > cpufreq_add_update_util_hook() (kernel/sched/cpufreq.c) for example ?
> > > That would probably have the same drawback as my current implementation,
> > > that is that the scheduler is notified of _all_ governor changes, not
> > > only changes to/from sugov although this is the only thing we care about
> > > for EAS.
> > Well, why don't you implement it as something like "if the governor changes
> > from sugov to something else (or the other way around), call this function
> > from the scheduler"?
> I just gave it a try and ended up with the diff below. It's basically
> the exact same patch with a direct function call instead of a notifier.
> (I also tried the sugov_start/stop thing I keep mentioning but it is
> more complex, so let's see if the simplest solution could work first).
> What do you think ?
This generally works for me from the cpufreq perspective, but I would
add "cpufreq" to the name of the new function, that is call it
something like sched_cpufreq_governor_change().
Also do you really need the extra work item? Governor changes are
carried out in process context anyway.