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:0.078 / U:1.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site