On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 06:52:11 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

+static void sugov_work(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
+
+	mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
+	__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
+				CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
+	mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
+

Be aware that the below store can creep up and become visible before the
unlock. AFAICT that doesn't really matter, but still.

It doesn't matter. :-)

Had it mattered, I would have used memory barriers.

quoted

+	sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
+}
+
+static void sugov_irq_work(struct irq_work *irq_work)
+{
+	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
+
+	sg_policy = container_of(irq_work, struct sugov_policy, irq_work);
+	schedule_work(&sg_policy->work);
+}

If you care what cpu the work runs on, you should schedule_work_on(),
regular schedule_work() can end up on any random cpu (although typically
it does not).

I know, but I don't care too much.

"ondemand" and "conservative" use schedule_work() for the same thing, so
drivers need to cope with that if they need things to run on a particular
CPU.

That said I guess things would be a bit more efficient if the work was
scheduled on the same CPU that had queued up the irq_work.  It also wouldn't
be too difficult to implement, so I'll make that change.