Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks

[Steve Muckle]

On 02/09/2016 07:09 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >> I think additional hooks such as enqueue/dequeue would be needed in
>>> >> RT/DL. The task tick callbacks will only run if a task in that class is
>>> >> executing at the time of the tick. There could be intermittent RT/DL
>>> >> task activity in a frequency domain (the only task activity there, no
>>> >> CFS tasks) that doesn't happen to overlap the tick. Worst case the task
>>> >> activity could be periodic in such a way that it never overlaps the tick
>>> >> and the update is never made.
>> >
>> > So if I'm reading this correctly, it would be better to put the hooks
>> > into update_curr_rt/dl()?

That should AFAICS be sufficient to avoid stalling. It may be more than
is required as that covers more than just enqueue/dequeue but I'm not
sure offhand.

>
> If done this way, I guess we may pass rq_clock_task(rq) as the time
> arg to cpufreq_update_util() from there and then the cpu_lock() call
> I've added to this prototype won't be necessary any more.

Is it rq_clock_task() or rq_clock()? The former can omit irq time so may
gradually fall behind wall clock time, delaying callbacks in cpufreq.

thanks,
Steve