| Message ID | 20210224054232.1222-1-zbestahu@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq() before check to fast_switch_enabled | expand |
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:32:36 +0530 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > On 24-02-21, 13:42, Yue Hu wrote: > > From: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com> > > > > Note that sugov_update_next_freq() may return false, that means the > > caller sugov_fast_switch() will do nothing except fast switch check. > > > > Similarly, sugov_deferred_update() also has unnecessary operations > > of raw_spin_{lock,unlock} in sugov_update_single_freq() for that case. > > > > So, let's call sugov_update_next_freq() before the fast switch check > > to avoid unnecessary behaviors above. Update the related interface > > definitions accordingly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com> > > --- > > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > index 41e498b..d23e5be 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > @@ -114,19 +114,13 @@ static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > return true; > > } > > > > -static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > - unsigned int next_freq) > > +static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, unsigned int next_freq) > > { > > - if (sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) > > - cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq); > > + cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq); > > I will call this directly instead, no need of the wrapper anymore. To fix it in next version. Thank you. > > > } > > > > -static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > - unsigned int next_freq) > > +static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) > > { > > - if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) > > - return; > > - > > if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) { > > sg_policy->work_in_progress = true; > > irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work); > > @@ -368,16 +362,19 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, > > sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = cached_freq; > > } > > > > + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) > > + return; > > + > > /* > > * This code runs under rq->lock for the target CPU, so it won't run > > * concurrently on two different CPUs for the same target and it is not > > * necessary to acquire the lock in the fast switch case. > > */ > > if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) { > > - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); > > + sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, next_f); > > } else { > > raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock); > > - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); > > + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); > > raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); > > } > > } > > @@ -456,12 +453,15 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time) > > if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) { > > next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time); > > > > + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) > > + goto unlock; > > + > > if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) > > - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); > > + sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, next_f); > > else > > - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); > > + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); > > } > > - > > +unlock: > > raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); > > } >
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 6:44 AM Yue Hu <zbestahu@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com> > > Note that sugov_update_next_freq() may return false, that means the > caller sugov_fast_switch() will do nothing except fast switch check. > > Similarly, sugov_deferred_update() also has unnecessary operations > of raw_spin_{lock,unlock} in sugov_update_single_freq() for that case. > > So, let's call sugov_update_next_freq() before the fast switch check > to avoid unnecessary behaviors above. Update the related interface > definitions accordingly. > > Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com> > --- > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > index 41e498b..d23e5be 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > @@ -114,19 +114,13 @@ static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > return true; > } > > -static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > - unsigned int next_freq) > +static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, unsigned int next_freq) > { > - if (sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) > - cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq); > + cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq); > } > > -static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > - unsigned int next_freq) > +static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) > { > - if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) > - return; > - > if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) { > sg_policy->work_in_progress = true; > irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work); > @@ -368,16 +362,19 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, > sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = cached_freq; > } > > + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) > + return; > + > /* > * This code runs under rq->lock for the target CPU, so it won't run > * concurrently on two different CPUs for the same target and it is not > * necessary to acquire the lock in the fast switch case. > */ > if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) { > - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); > + sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, next_f); > } else { > raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock); > - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); > + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); > raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); > } > } > @@ -456,12 +453,15 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time) > if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) { > next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time); > > + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) > + goto unlock; > + > if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) > - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); > + sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, next_f); > else > - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); > + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); > } > - > +unlock: > raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); > } > > -- Applied as 5.13 material, thanks!
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c index 41e498b..d23e5be 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c @@ -114,19 +114,13 @@ static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, return true; } -static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, - unsigned int next_freq) +static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, unsigned int next_freq) { - if (sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) - cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq); + cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq); } -static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, - unsigned int next_freq) +static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) { - if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) - return; - if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) { sg_policy->work_in_progress = true; irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work); @@ -368,16 +362,19 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = cached_freq; } + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) + return; + /* * This code runs under rq->lock for the target CPU, so it won't run * concurrently on two different CPUs for the same target and it is not * necessary to acquire the lock in the fast switch case. */ if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) { - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); + sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, next_f); } else { raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock); - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); } } @@ -456,12 +453,15 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time) if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) { next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time); + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) + goto unlock; + if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); + sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, next_f); else - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); } - +unlock: raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); }