Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: don't trigger cpufreq update w/o real rt/deadline tasks running

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On 4/21/2016 12:24 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-04-20 22:01 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:32:35AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 18, 2016 01:51:24 PM Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > > Sometimes update_curr() is called w/o tasks actually running, it is
> > > > captured by:
> > > >      u64 delta_exec = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
> > > > We should not trigger cpufreq update in this case for rt/deadline
> > > > classes, and this patch fix it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > The signed-off-by tag should agree with the From: header.  One way to achieve
> > > that is to add an extra From: line at the start of the changelog.
> > >
> > > That said, this looks like a good catch that should go into 4.6 to me.
> > >
> > > Peter, what do you think?
> > I'm confused by the Changelog. *what* ?
> Sometimes .update_curr hook is called w/o tasks actually running, it is
> captured by:
>
>          u64 delta_exec = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
>
> We should not trigger cpufreq update in this case for rt/deadline
> classes, and this patch fix it.

That's what you wrote in the changelog, no need to repeat that.

I guess Peter is asking for more details, though.  I actually would like 
to get some more details here too.  Like an example of when the 
situation in question actually happens.

Thanks,
Rafael