On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:52:20AM -0800, Steve Muckle wrote:

On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

quoted

My concern above is that pokes are guaranteed to keep occurring when

quoted

there is only RT or DL activity so nothing breaks.

The hook in their respective tick handler should ensure stuff is called
sporadically and isn't stalled.

But that's only true if the RT/DL tasks happen to be running when the
tick arrives right?

Couldn't we have RT/DL activity which doesn't overlap with the tick? And
if no CFS tasks happen to be executing on that CPU, we'll never trigger
the cpufreq update. This could go on for an arbitrarily long time
depending on the periodicity of the work.

Possible yes, but why do we care? Such a CPU would be so much idle that
cpufreq doesn't matter one way or another, right?