| Message ID | 20240322110850.77086-3-lukasz.luba@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Update Energy Model after chip binning adjusted voltages | expand |
On 22/03/2024 12:08, Lukasz Luba wrote: Maybe better : "PM: EM: Refactoring em_adjust_new_capacity()" ? > There is going to be a new update function addressing chip binning. > Therefore, some common code which can be refactored and called from > upcoming changes and em_adjust_new_capacity(). In this way the code > duplication can be avoided. IMHO, that's hard to digest. Extract em_table_dup() and em_recalc_and_update() from em_adjust_new_capacity(). Both functions will be later reused by the 'update EM due to chip binning' functionality. [...] > +static int em_recalc_and_update(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_domain *pd, > + struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table) > +{ > + int ret; > + > + ret = em_compute_costs(dev, em_table->state, NULL, pd->nr_perf_states, > pd->flags); > - if (ret) { > - dev_warn(dev, "EM: compute costs failed\n"); > - return; > - } > + if (ret) > + goto free_em_table; There seems to be a subtle change in this patch. When em_compute_costs() fails now em_table_free() is called. This wasn't the case before when em_compute_costs() was directly called from em_adjust_new_capacity(). [...]
On 3/26/24 10:51, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 22/03/2024 12:08, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > Maybe better : "PM: EM: Refactoring em_adjust_new_capacity()" ? > >> There is going to be a new update function addressing chip binning. >> Therefore, some common code which can be refactored and called from >> upcoming changes and em_adjust_new_capacity(). In this way the code >> duplication can be avoided. > > IMHO, that's hard to digest. > > Extract em_table_dup() and em_recalc_and_update() from > em_adjust_new_capacity(). Both functions will be later reused by the > 'update EM due to chip binning' functionality. That looks good, I'll update it. > > [...] > >> +static int em_recalc_and_update(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_domain *pd, >> + struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = em_compute_costs(dev, em_table->state, NULL, pd->nr_perf_states, >> pd->flags); >> - if (ret) { >> - dev_warn(dev, "EM: compute costs failed\n"); >> - return; >> - } >> + if (ret) >> + goto free_em_table; > > There seems to be a subtle change in this patch. When em_compute_costs() > fails now em_table_free() is called. This wasn't the case before when > em_compute_costs() was directly called from em_adjust_new_capacity(). Yes, I've refactored it to explicitly call to the same free_em_table for both fails in the new code. It should have been done in old code. > > [...]
diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c index 9e1c9aa399ea9..6960dd7393b2d 100644 --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c @@ -674,23 +674,15 @@ void em_dev_unregister_perf_domain(struct device *dev) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_dev_unregister_perf_domain); -/* - * Adjustment of CPU performance values after boot, when all CPUs capacites - * are correctly calculated. - */ -static void em_adjust_new_capacity(struct device *dev, - struct em_perf_domain *pd, - u64 max_cap) +static struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table_dup(struct em_perf_domain *pd) { struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table; struct em_perf_state *ps, *new_ps; - int ret, ps_size; + int ps_size; em_table = em_table_alloc(pd); - if (!em_table) { - dev_warn(dev, "EM: allocation failed\n"); - return; - } + if (!em_table) + return NULL; new_ps = em_table->state; @@ -702,24 +694,52 @@ static void em_adjust_new_capacity(struct device *dev, rcu_read_unlock(); - em_init_performance(dev, pd, new_ps, pd->nr_perf_states); - ret = em_compute_costs(dev, new_ps, NULL, pd->nr_perf_states, + return em_table; +} + +static int em_recalc_and_update(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_domain *pd, + struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table) +{ + int ret; + + ret = em_compute_costs(dev, em_table->state, NULL, pd->nr_perf_states, pd->flags); - if (ret) { - dev_warn(dev, "EM: compute costs failed\n"); - return; - } + if (ret) + goto free_em_table; ret = em_dev_update_perf_domain(dev, em_table); if (ret) - dev_warn(dev, "EM: update failed %d\n", ret); + goto free_em_table; /* * This is one-time-update, so give up the ownership in this updater. * The EM framework has incremented the usage counter and from now * will keep the reference (then free the memory when needed). */ +free_em_table: em_table_free(em_table); + return ret; +} + +/* + * Adjustment of CPU performance values after boot, when all CPUs capacites + * are correctly calculated. + */ +static void em_adjust_new_capacity(struct device *dev, + struct em_perf_domain *pd, + u64 max_cap) +{ + struct em_perf_table __rcu *em_table; + + em_table = em_table_dup(pd); + if (!em_table) { + dev_warn(dev, "EM: allocation failed\n"); + return; + } + + em_init_performance(dev, pd, em_table->state, pd->nr_perf_states); + + em_recalc_and_update(dev, pd, em_table); } static void em_check_capacity_update(void)
There is going to be a new update function addressing chip binning. Therefore, some common code which can be refactored and called from upcoming changes and em_adjust_new_capacity(). In this way the code duplication can be avoided. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> --- kernel/power/energy_model.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)