Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Be less aggressive in calling cpufreq_update_util()

[Qais Yousef]

On 12/12/23 12:06, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> > @@ -6772,6 +6737,8 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> >  enqueue_throttle:
> >         assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> >
> 
> Here and in the other places below,  you lose :
> 
>  -       } else if (decayed) {
> 
> The decayed condition ensures a rate limit (~1ms) in the number of
> calls to cpufreq_update_util.
> 
> enqueue/dequeue/tick don't create any sudden change in the PELT
> signals that would require to update cpufreq of the change unlike
> attach/detach

Okay, thanks for the clue. Let me rethink this again.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef