lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 07/13] firmware: arm_scmi: Add notification dispatch and delivery
From
Date
Hi Lukasz

Thanks for your feedback !

On 21/02/2020 13:25, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
>
> I didn't want to jump into your discussion with Jim in other broader
> thread with this small thought, so I added a comment below.
>
> On 2/14/20 3:35 PM, Cristian Marussi wrote:
>> Add core SCMI Notifications dispatch and delivery support logic which is
> [snip]
>
>>
>> @@ -840,6 +1071,11 @@ static struct scmi_notify_ops notify_ops = {
>> */
>> int scmi_notification_init(struct scmi_handle *handle)
>> {
>> + scmi_notify_wq = alloc_workqueue("scmi_notify",
>> + WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_FREEZABLE, 0);
>
> I think it might limit some platforms. It depends on their workload.
> If they have some high priority workloads which rely on this mechanisms,
> they might need a RT task here. The workqueues would be scheduled in
> CFS, so it depends on workload in there (we might even see 10s ms delays
> in scheduling-up them). If we use RT we would grab the CPU from CFS.
>
> It would be good if it is a customization option: which mechanism
> to use based on some a parameter. Then we could create:
> a) workqueue with the flags above
> b) workqueue with WQ_HIGHPRI (limited by minimum nice)
> c) kthread_create_worker() with RT/DL/FIFO sched policy
> (with also a parameterized priority)
> In default clients might use a) but when they want to tune their
> platform, they might change only a parameter in their scmi code,
> not maintaining a patch for the RT function out of tree.

In this series, I have not addressed configurability issues at all (as noted in the cover):
in fact I was thinking that stuff like WQ_HIGHPRI flags and per-protocol queue sizes could
be beneficial to be customizable depending on the specific platform, but I had not gone to
the extreme of thinking of adopting a dedicated RT kthread as a worker...good point...it
makes surely sense to have this configurable option to try to reduce the latency where possible.

I think it's important to give the user the possibility to configure the deferred worker
as you suggested, if the user decides to rely on Linux to handle a critical notification,
but I'd prefer queuing up this work you suggested on a different series on top of this one.
(which is starting to be a little to much voluminous...for being just the core support)

Regards

Cristian

>
> Regards,
> Lukasz
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-21 20:02    [W:0.068 / U:2.760 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site