On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:27 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 15-10-19, 23:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 5:53 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > - Update QoS framework with the knowledge of related CPUs, this has been pending
> > > > until now from my side. And this is the thing we really need to do. Eventually
> > > > we shall have only a single notifier list for all CPUs of a policy, at least
> > > > for MIN/MAX frequencies.
> > >
> > > - Move the PM QoS requests and notifiers to the new policy CPU on all
> > > changes of that. That is, when cpufreq_offline() nominates the new
> > > "leader", all of the QoS stuff for the policy needs to go to this one.
> >
> > Alas, that still will not work, because things like
> > acpi_processor_ppc_init() only work accidentally for one-CPU policies.
>
> I am not sure what problem you see here ? Can you please explain a bit more.
Never mind, sorry. This is called for policy->cpu too.
> > Generally, adding such a PM QoS request to a non-policy CPU simply has
> > no effect until it becomes a policy CPU which may be never.
>
> I was thinking maybe we can read the constraints for all CPUs in the
> policy->cpus mask in cpufreq_set_policy() and so this part of the problem will
> just go away. The only part that would be left is to remove the QoS constraints
> properly.
That would be on the complicated side IMO.
> > It looks like using device PM QoS for cpufreq is a mistake in general
> > and what is needed is a struct pm_qos_constraints member in struct
> > cpufreq_policy and something like
> >
> > struct freq_pm_qos_request {
> > enum freq_pm_qos_req_type type; /* min or max */
> > struct plist_node pnode;
> > struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> > };
> >
> > Then, pm_qos_update_target() can be used for adding, updating and
> > removing requests.
I have patches implementing this idea, more or less, almost ready,
stay tuned. :-)
