From: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org> To: quentin.perret@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org> Subject: [PATCH v2] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 18:08:48 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1552048728-29657-1-git-send-email-clingutla@codeaurora.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <df8c3952-b1ab-bc15-ccb7-e4a5d7d54bf8@arm.com> If user updates any cpu's cpu_capacity, then the new value is going to be applied to all its online sibling cpus. But this need not to be correct always, as sibling cpus (in ARM, same micro architecture cpus) would have different cpu_capacity with different performance characteristics. So updating the user supplied cpu_capacity to all cpu siblings is not correct. And another problem is, current code assumes that 'all cpus in a cluster or with same package_id (core_siblings), would have same cpu_capacity'. But with commit '5bdd2b3f0f8 ("arm64: topology: add support to remove cpu topology sibling masks")', when a cpu hotplugged out, the cpu information gets cleared in its sibling cpus. So user supplied cpu_capacity would be applied to only online sibling cpus at the time. After that, if any cpu hot plugged in, it would have different cpu_capacity than its siblings, which breaks the above assumption. So instead of mucking around the core sibling mask for user supplied value, use device-tree to set cpu capacity. And make the cpu_capacity node as read-only to know the assymetry between cpus in the system. While at it, remove cpu_scale_mutex usage, which used for sysfs write protection. Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org> --- Changes from v1: - Removed cpu_scale_mutex usage, suggested by Dietmar Eggemann. --- drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 36 +----------------------------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 35 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c index edfcf8d..1739d7e 100644 --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ */ #include <linux/acpi.h> -#include <linux/arch_topology.h> #include <linux/cpu.h> #include <linux/cpufreq.h> #include <linux/device.h> @@ -31,7 +30,6 @@ void arch_set_freq_scale(struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long cur_freq, per_cpu(freq_scale, i) = scale; } -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpu_scale_mutex); DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpu_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE; void topology_set_cpu_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity) @@ -51,37 +49,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_capacity_show(struct device *dev, static void update_topology_flags_workfn(struct work_struct *work); static DECLARE_WORK(update_topology_flags_work, update_topology_flags_workfn); -static ssize_t cpu_capacity_store(struct device *dev, - struct device_attribute *attr, - const char *buf, - size_t count) -{ - struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev); - int this_cpu = cpu->dev.id; - int i; - unsigned long new_capacity; - ssize_t ret; - - if (!count) - return 0; - - ret = kstrtoul(buf, 0, &new_capacity); - if (ret) - return ret; - if (new_capacity > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) - return -EINVAL; - - mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex); - for_each_cpu(i, &cpu_topology[this_cpu].core_sibling) - topology_set_cpu_scale(i, new_capacity); - mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex); - - schedule_work(&update_topology_flags_work); - - return count; -} - -static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(cpu_capacity); +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(cpu_capacity); static int register_cpu_capacity_sysctl(void) { @@ -141,7 +109,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void) return; pr_debug("cpu_capacity: capacity_scale=%u\n", capacity_scale); - mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex); for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { pr_debug("cpu_capacity: cpu=%d raw_capacity=%u\n", cpu, raw_capacity[cpu]); @@ -151,7 +118,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void) pr_debug("cpu_capacity: CPU%d cpu_capacity=%lu\n", cpu, topology_get_cpu_scale(NULL, cpu)); } - mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex); } bool __init topology_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu) -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org> To: quentin.perret@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org>, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeremy.linton@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH v2] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 18:08:48 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1552048728-29657-1-git-send-email-clingutla@codeaurora.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <df8c3952-b1ab-bc15-ccb7-e4a5d7d54bf8@arm.com> If user updates any cpu's cpu_capacity, then the new value is going to be applied to all its online sibling cpus. But this need not to be correct always, as sibling cpus (in ARM, same micro architecture cpus) would have different cpu_capacity with different performance characteristics. So updating the user supplied cpu_capacity to all cpu siblings is not correct. And another problem is, current code assumes that 'all cpus in a cluster or with same package_id (core_siblings), would have same cpu_capacity'. But with commit '5bdd2b3f0f8 ("arm64: topology: add support to remove cpu topology sibling masks")', when a cpu hotplugged out, the cpu information gets cleared in its sibling cpus. So user supplied cpu_capacity would be applied to only online sibling cpus at the time. After that, if any cpu hot plugged in, it would have different cpu_capacity than its siblings, which breaks the above assumption. So instead of mucking around the core sibling mask for user supplied value, use device-tree to set cpu capacity. And make the cpu_capacity node as read-only to know the assymetry between cpus in the system. While at it, remove cpu_scale_mutex usage, which used for sysfs write protection. Tested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lingutla Chandrasekhar <clingutla@codeaurora.org> --- Changes from v1: - Removed cpu_scale_mutex usage, suggested by Dietmar Eggemann. --- drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 36 +----------------------------------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 35 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c index edfcf8d..1739d7e 100644 --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c @@ -7,7 +7,6 @@ */ #include <linux/acpi.h> -#include <linux/arch_topology.h> #include <linux/cpu.h> #include <linux/cpufreq.h> #include <linux/device.h> @@ -31,7 +30,6 @@ void arch_set_freq_scale(struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long cur_freq, per_cpu(freq_scale, i) = scale; } -static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpu_scale_mutex); DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpu_scale) = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE; void topology_set_cpu_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long capacity) @@ -51,37 +49,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_capacity_show(struct device *dev, static void update_topology_flags_workfn(struct work_struct *work); static DECLARE_WORK(update_topology_flags_work, update_topology_flags_workfn); -static ssize_t cpu_capacity_store(struct device *dev, - struct device_attribute *attr, - const char *buf, - size_t count) -{ - struct cpu *cpu = container_of(dev, struct cpu, dev); - int this_cpu = cpu->dev.id; - int i; - unsigned long new_capacity; - ssize_t ret; - - if (!count) - return 0; - - ret = kstrtoul(buf, 0, &new_capacity); - if (ret) - return ret; - if (new_capacity > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) - return -EINVAL; - - mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex); - for_each_cpu(i, &cpu_topology[this_cpu].core_sibling) - topology_set_cpu_scale(i, new_capacity); - mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex); - - schedule_work(&update_topology_flags_work); - - return count; -} - -static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(cpu_capacity); +static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(cpu_capacity); static int register_cpu_capacity_sysctl(void) { @@ -141,7 +109,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void) return; pr_debug("cpu_capacity: capacity_scale=%u\n", capacity_scale); - mutex_lock(&cpu_scale_mutex); for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) { pr_debug("cpu_capacity: cpu=%d raw_capacity=%u\n", cpu, raw_capacity[cpu]); @@ -151,7 +118,6 @@ void topology_normalize_cpu_scale(void) pr_debug("cpu_capacity: CPU%d cpu_capacity=%lu\n", cpu, topology_get_cpu_scale(NULL, cpu)); } - mutex_unlock(&cpu_scale_mutex); } bool __init topology_parse_cpu_capacity(struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu) -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-08 12:39 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-02-28 11:53 [PATCH] arch_topology: Update user supplied capacity to possible cpus in cluster Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-02-28 12:19 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-02-28 14:38 ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla 2019-02-28 15:25 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-02 13:30 ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla 2019-03-04 18:21 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-05 9:23 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-05 11:13 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-05 11:29 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-05 11:36 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-05 15:53 ` Chandra Sekhar Lingutla 2019-03-05 16:12 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-05 16:54 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-06 15:22 ` Morten Rasmussen 2019-03-06 15:27 ` [PATCH v1] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-06 15:27 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-07 7:28 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 7:28 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 9:31 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-07 9:31 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-07 9:57 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 9:57 ` Juri Lelli 2019-03-07 12:14 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-07 12:14 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-07 15:04 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-07 15:04 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-07 15:19 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-07 15:19 ` Sudeep Holla 2019-03-08 11:45 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2019-03-08 11:45 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2019-03-08 12:38 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar [this message] 2019-03-08 12:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-27 10:56 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-27 10:56 ` Quentin Perret 2019-03-06 9:48 ` [PATCH] arch_topology: Update user supplied capacity to possible cpus in cluster Dietmar Eggemann 2019-03-27 11:57 [PATCH v2] arch_topology: Make cpu_capacity sysfs node as ready-only Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-27 11:57 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-27 16:15 ` Mukesh Ojha 2019-03-27 16:15 ` Mukesh Ojha 2019-03-28 4:47 Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-28 4:47 ` Lingutla Chandrasekhar 2019-03-28 6:56 ` Mukesh Ojha 2019-03-28 6:56 ` Mukesh Ojha 2019-03-29 16:26 ` Greg KH 2019-03-29 16:26 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1552048728-29657-1-git-send-email-clingutla@codeaurora.org \ --to=clingutla@codeaurora.org \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \ --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \ --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.