Hi Juri, On 12/11/2015 03:12 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: >> @@ -2895,6 +2934,8 @@ void scheduler_tick(void) >> > trigger_load_balance(rq); >> > #endif >> > rq_last_tick_reset(rq); >> > + >> > + sched_freq_tick(cpu); > We are not holding rq->lock anymore at this points, and this collides > with comment in update_cpu_capacity_request(). Can't you just move this > up before raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock)?
My thinking in putting it last was to have it after the possible periodic load balance, so that we don't initiate a frequency change only to have to modify the frequency again immediately afterwards. Thinking more about it, the way we currently have the policy defined there's no concern with having it earlier since sched_freq_tick only causes the frequency to go to fmax (or do nothing). If we modify the policy so that sched_freq_tick can cause arbitrary frequency changes then I think this may need more thought. thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/