Message ID | 12275472.W5IoEtXICo@kreacher |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | None | expand |
On 27-10-20, 16:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > @@ -102,11 +102,12 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str > static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > unsigned int next_freq) > { > - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > return false; > > sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > > return true; > } > @@ -161,10 +162,12 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct > > freq = map_util_freq(util, freq, max); > > - if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > + if (cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS)) > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true; > + else if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && > + !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > return sg_policy->next_freq; > > - sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = freq; > return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); > } What about just this instead ? static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, unsigned int next_freq) { - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && + !cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS)) return false; sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; return true; }
On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:10 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 27-10-20, 16:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > @@ -102,11 +102,12 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str > > static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > unsigned int next_freq) > > { > > - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) > > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > > return false; > > > > sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > > sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > > > > return true; > > } > > @@ -161,10 +162,12 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct > > > > freq = map_util_freq(util, freq, max); > > > > - if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > > + if (cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS)) > > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true; > > + else if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && > > + !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > > return sg_policy->next_freq; > > > > - sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > > sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = freq; > > return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); > > } > > What about just this instead ? > > static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > unsigned int next_freq) > { > - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && > + !cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS)) > return false; > > sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > > return true; > } > Without any changes in get_next_freq() this is not sufficient, because get_next_freq() may skip the update too. If the intention is to always let the driver callback run when CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS is set, then both get_next_freq() and sugov_update_next_freq() need to be modified.
On 29-10-20, 11:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 12:10 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On 27-10-20, 16:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > > +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > > @@ -102,11 +102,12 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str > > > static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > > unsigned int next_freq) > > > { > > > - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) > > > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > > > return false; > > > > > > sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > > > sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > > > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > > > > > > return true; > > > } > > > @@ -161,10 +162,12 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct > > > > > > freq = map_util_freq(util, freq, max); > > > > > > - if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > > > + if (cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS)) > > > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true; > > > + else if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && > > > + !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > > > return sg_policy->next_freq; > > > > > > - sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > > > sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = freq; > > > return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); > > > } > > > > What about just this instead ? > > > > static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > unsigned int next_freq) > > { > > - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) > > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && > > + !cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS)) > > return false; > > > > sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > > sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > > > > return true; > > } > > > > Without any changes in get_next_freq() this is not sufficient, because > get_next_freq() may skip the update too. > > If the intention is to always let the driver callback run when > CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS is set, then both get_next_freq() and > sugov_update_next_freq() need to be modified. Right, my mistake. I was just suggesting that we may not need to touch need_freq_update at all but just check the flag. -- viresh
Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c @@ -102,11 +102,12 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, unsigned int next_freq) { - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) return false; sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; + sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; return true; } @@ -161,10 +162,12 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct freq = map_util_freq(util, freq, max); - if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) + if (cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS)) + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true; + else if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && + !sg_policy->need_freq_update) return sg_policy->next_freq; - sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = freq; return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); }