Re: [PATCH 2/11] cpufreq: governor: Use common mutex for dbs_data protection

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04-02-16, 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:09 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 04-02-16, 00:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >>
>> >> Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
>> >> has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data.  However,
>> >> those mutexes are never used at the same time
>> >
>> > Why do you think so? I thought they can always be used in parallel.
>> >
>> > Consider 2 or more policies, one can have ondemand as the governor,
>> > whereas other one can have conservative.
>> >
>> > If CPUs go online/offline or if governors are switching in parallel,
>> > then cpufreq_governor_dbs() can very much run in parallel for ondemand
>> > and conservative.
>> >
>> > Or am I missing something here ?
>>
>> Well, so perhaps the changelog is inaccurate.
>>
>> However, what's wrong with using a single mutex then?
>
> You are killing the possibility of running the code faster. Consider
> this:
> - A 16 policy system with N CPUs in every policy (IBM has something
>   similar only :) )..
> - 4 policies using ondemand, 4 using conservative, 4 using powersave
>   and 4 with performance.
> - Now if we try to change governors for all of them in parallel, only
>   one will be done at a time and others have to wait for this
>   BIG-kernel lock.

And why is this a big problem, actually?  Why do we want the switching
of governors to be that efficient?

Thanks,
Rafael