lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] drivers: base: Add frequency constraint infrastructure
    On 18-01-19, 14:45, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
    > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 03:32:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
    > > On 17-01-19, 17:03, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
    > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 02:48:34PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
    > > > > +static void fcs_update(struct freq_constraints *fcs, struct freq_pair *freq,
    > > > > + enum fc_event event)
    > > > > +{
    > > > > + mutex_lock(&fcs->lock);
    > > > > +
    > > > > + if (_fcs_update(fcs, freq, event)) {
    > > > > + if (fcs->callback)
    > > > > + schedule_work(&fcs->work);
    > > >
    > > > IIUC the constraints aren't applied until the callback is executed. I
    > > > wonder if a dedicated workqueue should be used instead of the system
    > > > one, to avoid longer delays from other kernel entities that might
    > > > 'misbehave'. Especially for thermal constraints we want a quick
    > > > response.
    > >
    > > I thought the system workqueue should be fast enough, it contains
    > > multiple threads which can all run in parallel and service this work.
    >
    > Ok, I was still stuck at the old one thread per CPU model, where a
    > slow work would block other items in the same workqueue until it
    > finishes execution. After reading a bit through
    > Documentation/core-api/workqueue.rst I agree that a system workqueue
    > is probably fast enough. It might be warranted though to use
    > system_highpri_wq here.

    Is this really that high priority stuff ? I am not sure.

    --
    viresh

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-01-22 08:10    [W:3.482 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site