On 12/06/2018 19:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[ ... ]
Yes, drifting is not an issue if that happens. This scheme is simpler
and safer than setting the timer ahead before waking up the tasks with
the risk it expires before all the tasks ended their idle cycles.
>>>
>>> sloppy though..
On 12/06/2018 19:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[ ... ]
Yes, drifting is not an issue if that happens. This scheme is simpler
and safer than setting the timer ahead before waking up the tasks with
the risk it expires before all the tasks ended their idle cycles.
>>>
>>> sloppy though..
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 22:32, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:19 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Daniel Lezcano
wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 22:32, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:19 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On
On 13/06/2018 22:32, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:19 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Tue,
On 13/06/2018 22:32, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:19 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Tue,
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:19 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > >
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:19 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > >
On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a
On 13/06/2018 22:07, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a
> > > new
> > > policy inserting idle cycles. The
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 22:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a
> > > new
> > > policy inserting idle cycles. The
On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
>> policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
>> similar action.
>>
>> Instead of implementing
On 13/06/2018 17:54, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
>> policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
>> similar action.
>>
>> Instead of implementing
On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
> policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
> similar action.
>
> Instead of implementing idle injections privately in the cpu_cooling
> device,
On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 14:00 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
> policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
> similar action.
>
> Instead of implementing idle injections privately in the cpu_cooling
> device,
On 13-06-18, 11:03, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> nr_threads(smpboot) <> nr_threads(idleinject)
>
> If we are facing races issues, it is because we are trying to avoid
> using locks in the code path. With lock and proper refcounting that
> should be solved, AFAICT there are similar races with inodes.
On 13-06-18, 11:03, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> nr_threads(smpboot) <> nr_threads(idleinject)
>
> If we are facing races issues, it is because we are trying to avoid
> using locks in the code path. With lock and proper refcounting that
> should be solved, AFAICT there are similar races with inodes.
On 13/06/2018 10:55, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-06-18, 19:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> Mmh, it is unclear for me if the park() vs wakeup() can happen at the
>>> same time.
>>>
>>> If the park() function is called, that means the
On 13/06/2018 10:55, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-06-18, 19:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> Mmh, it is unclear for me if the park() vs wakeup() can happen at the
>>> same time.
>>>
>>> If the park() function is called, that means the
On 12-06-18, 19:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Mmh, it is unclear for me if the park() vs wakeup() can happen at the
> > same time.
> >
> > If the park() function is called, that means the hotplug is allowed.
>
> No, it means we're
On 12-06-18, 19:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > Mmh, it is unclear for me if the park() vs wakeup() can happen at the
> > same time.
> >
> > If the park() function is called, that means the hotplug is allowed.
>
> No, it means we're
On 12-06-18, 14:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > +struct idle_injection_device {
>
> remove this:
> > + cpumask_var_t cpumask;
>
> > + struct hrtimer timer;
> > + struct completion stop_complete;
> > + unsigned int
On 12-06-18, 14:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > +struct idle_injection_device {
>
> remove this:
> > + cpumask_var_t cpumask;
>
> > + struct hrtimer timer;
> > + struct completion stop_complete;
> > + unsigned int
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Mmh, it is unclear for me if the park() vs wakeup() can happen at the
> same time.
>
> If the park() function is called, that means the hotplug is allowed.
No, it means we're inside hot-un-plug, but that doesn't stop the hrtimer
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:02:57PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Mmh, it is unclear for me if the park() vs wakeup() can happen at the
> same time.
>
> If the park() function is called, that means the hotplug is allowed.
No, it means we're inside hot-un-plug, but that doesn't stop the hrtimer
On 12/06/2018 17:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 04:37:17PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/06/2018 16:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In this case, you can
On 12/06/2018 17:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 04:37:17PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/06/2018 16:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In this case, you can
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 04:37:17PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/06/2018 16:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> In this case, you can do:
> >>
> >> That is what we had before but
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 04:37:17PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/06/2018 16:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> In this case, you can do:
> >>
> >> That is what we had before but
On 12/06/2018 16:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> +void idle_injection_stop(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
>> +{
>> +pr_debug("Stopping injecting idle cycles on CPUs '%*pbl'\n",
>> +
On 12/06/2018 16:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> +void idle_injection_stop(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
>> +{
>> +pr_debug("Stopping injecting idle cycles on CPUs '%*pbl'\n",
>> +
On 12/06/2018 16:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> +static void idle_injection_last_man(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
>> +{
>> +unsigned int run_duration_ms;
>> +
>> +run_duration_ms = READ_ONCE(ii_dev->run_duration_ms);
On 12/06/2018 16:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> +static void idle_injection_last_man(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
>> +{
>> +unsigned int run_duration_ms;
>> +
>> +run_duration_ms = READ_ONCE(ii_dev->run_duration_ms);
On 12/06/2018 16:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> In this case, you can do:
>>
>> That is what we had before but we change the code to set the count
>> before waking up the task, so compute
On 12/06/2018 16:06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> In this case, you can do:
>>
>> That is what we had before but we change the code to set the count
>> before waking up the task, so compute
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +void idle_injection_stop(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> +{
> + pr_debug("Stopping injecting idle cycles on CPUs '%*pbl'\n",
> + cpumask_pr_args(ii_dev->cpumask));
> +
> +
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +void idle_injection_stop(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> +{
> + pr_debug("Stopping injecting idle cycles on CPUs '%*pbl'\n",
> + cpumask_pr_args(ii_dev->cpumask));
> +
> +
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +static void idle_injection_last_man(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> +{
> + unsigned int run_duration_ms;
> +
> + run_duration_ms = READ_ONCE(ii_dev->run_duration_ms);
> + if (run_duration_ms) {
> +
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +static void idle_injection_last_man(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> +{
> + unsigned int run_duration_ms;
> +
> + run_duration_ms = READ_ONCE(ii_dev->run_duration_ms);
> + if (run_duration_ms) {
> +
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > In this case, you can do:
>
> That is what we had before but we change the code to set the count
> before waking up the task, so compute the cpumask_weight of the
> resulting AND right
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 03:02:14PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > In this case, you can do:
>
> That is what we had before but we change the code to set the count
> before waking up the task, so compute the cpumask_weight of the
> resulting AND right
On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/06/2018 14:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
+static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device
On 12/06/2018 14:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/06/2018 14:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
+static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +struct idle_injection_device {
remove this:
> + cpumask_var_t cpumask;
> + struct hrtimer timer;
> + struct completion stop_complete;
> + unsigned int idle_duration_ms;
> + unsigned int run_duration_ms;
> +
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +struct idle_injection_device {
remove this:
> + cpumask_var_t cpumask;
> + struct hrtimer timer;
> + struct completion stop_complete;
> + unsigned int idle_duration_ms;
> + unsigned int run_duration_ms;
> +
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/06/2018 14:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> +static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:44:29PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 12/06/2018 14:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> +static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> >> +{
> >> + struct
On 12/06/2018 14:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> +static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
>> +{
>> +struct idle_injection_thread *iit;
>> +struct cpumask tmp;
>> +unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>>
On 12/06/2018 14:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> +static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
>> +{
>> +struct idle_injection_thread *iit;
>> +struct cpumask tmp;
>> +unsigned int cpu;
>> +
>>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> +{
> + struct idle_injection_thread *iit;
> + struct cpumask tmp;
> + unsigned int cpu;
> +
> + cpumask_and(, ii_dev->cpumask,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 02:00:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> +static void __idle_injection_wakeup(struct idle_injection_device *ii_dev)
> +{
> + struct idle_injection_thread *iit;
> + struct cpumask tmp;
> + unsigned int cpu;
> +
> + cpumask_and(, ii_dev->cpumask,
Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
similar action.
Instead of implementing idle injections privately in the cpu_cooling
device, move the idle injection code in a dedicated framework and give
the
Initially, the cpu_cooling device for ARM was changed by adding a new
policy inserting idle cycles. The intel_powerclamp driver does a
similar action.
Instead of implementing idle injections privately in the cpu_cooling
device, move the idle injection code in a dedicated framework and give
the
54 matches
Mail list logo
