[PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient. This patchset
tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
call for each policy.

I have tested this on arm64 platform and is compile tested for other
platforms. This has gone through 0-day testing as well, I have pushed my
branch over a week back to the public tree which gets tested by 0-day
bot.

FWIW, it maybe possible to make the callback implementation more
efficient now that they are called only once for each policy, but this
patchset only did the minimum amount of changes to make sure we don't
end up breaking otherwise working code.

--
viresh

Viresh Kumar (7):
  cpufreq: Pass policy->related_cpus to transition notifiers
  ARM: smp: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  ARM: twd: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  sparc64: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  x86/tsc: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  KVM: x86: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  cpufreq: Call transition notifiers only once for each policy

 arch/arm/kernel/smp.c       | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c   |  9 ++++++---
 arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
 arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c       | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c          | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c   | 19 ++++++++++---------
 include/linux/cpufreq.h     |  2 +-
 7 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)

-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

[PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient. This patchset
tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
call for each policy.

I have tested this on arm64 platform and is compile tested for other
platforms. This has gone through 0-day testing as well, I have pushed my
branch over a week back to the public tree which gets tested by 0-day
bot.

FWIW, it maybe possible to make the callback implementation more
efficient now that they are called only once for each policy, but this
patchset only did the minimum amount of changes to make sure we don't
end up breaking otherwise working code.

--
viresh

Viresh Kumar (7):
  cpufreq: Pass policy->related_cpus to transition notifiers
  ARM: smp: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  ARM: twd: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  sparc64: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  x86/tsc: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  KVM: x86: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  cpufreq: Call transition notifiers only once for each policy

 arch/arm/kernel/smp.c       | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c   |  9 ++++++---
 arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
 arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c       | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c          | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c   | 19 ++++++++++---------
 include/linux/cpufreq.h     |  2 +-
 7 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)

-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

[PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient. This patchset
tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
call for each policy.

I have tested this on arm64 platform and is compile tested for other
platforms. This has gone through 0-day testing as well, I have pushed my
branch over a week back to the public tree which gets tested by 0-day
bot.

FWIW, it maybe possible to make the callback implementation more
efficient now that they are called only once for each policy, but this
patchset only did the minimum amount of changes to make sure we don't
end up breaking otherwise working code.

--
viresh

Viresh Kumar (7):
  cpufreq: Pass policy->related_cpus to transition notifiers
  ARM: smp: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  ARM: twd: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  sparc64: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  x86/tsc: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  KVM: x86: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs
  cpufreq: Call transition notifiers only once for each policy

 arch/arm/kernel/smp.c       | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c   |  9 ++++++---
 arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
 arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c       | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c          | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c   | 19 ++++++++++---------
 include/linux/cpufreq.h     |  2 +-
 7 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)

-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: Pass policy->related_cpus to transition notifiers

[Viresh Kumar]

Currently we call these notifiers once for each CPU of the policy->cpus
cpumask, which isn't that efficient.

This patch adds a cpumask pointer to struct cpufreq_freqs and copies
policy->related_cpus to it. The notifiers will have information about
all the affected CPUs now with the first call itself and once all the
notifier callbacks are updated to use the new field, we can remove the
"cpu" field from struct cpufreq_freqs and call the notifier only once
per policy.

Some of the transition notifier users use per-cpu data to read and store
their data and they rely on it being correct. With CPU offline/online
sequences we may end up with using stale data for those CPUs (which are
offlined/onlined). In order to avoid such corner cases, this patch uses
policy->related_cpus instead of policy->cpus.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 +
 include/linux/cpufreq.h   | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 0e626b00053b..b1b012169f00 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -311,6 +311,7 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 	if (cpufreq_disabled())
 		return;
 
+	freqs->cpus = policy->related_cpus;
 	freqs->flags = cpufreq_driver->flags;
 	pr_debug("notification %u of frequency transition to %u kHz\n",
 		 state, freqs->new);
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index b160e98076e3..dd318363dfc2 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ enum cpufreq_table_sorting {
 };
 
 struct cpufreq_freqs {
+	struct cpumask *cpus;
 	unsigned int cpu;	/* cpu nr */
 	unsigned int old;
 	unsigned int new;
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

[PATCH 2/7] ARM: smp: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates cpufreq_callback() to use the new "cpus" field.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
index 1d6f5ea522f4..59ee0f4db449 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
@@ -758,15 +758,19 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
 					unsigned long val, void *data)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
-	int cpu = freq->cpu;
+	int cpu, first = cpumask_first(freq->cpus);
+	unsigned int lpj;
 
 	if (freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)
 		return NOTIFY_OK;
 
-	if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu)) {
-		per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) =
-			per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
-		per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+	if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first)) {
+		for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus) {
+			per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) =
+				per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
+			per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+		}
+
 		if (!global_l_p_j_ref) {
 			global_l_p_j_ref = loops_per_jiffy;
 			global_l_p_j_ref_freq = freq->old;
@@ -778,10 +782,11 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
 		loops_per_jiffy = cpufreq_scale(global_l_p_j_ref,
 						global_l_p_j_ref_freq,
 						freq->new);
-		per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy =
-			cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu),
-					per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu),
-					freq->new);
+
+		lpj = cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first),
+				    per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, first), freq->new);
+		for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus)
+			per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
 	}
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

[PATCH 2/7] ARM: smp: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates cpufreq_callback() to use the new "cpus" field.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 23 ++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
index 1d6f5ea522f4..59ee0f4db449 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp.c
@@ -758,15 +758,19 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
 					unsigned long val, void *data)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
-	int cpu = freq->cpu;
+	int cpu, first = cpumask_first(freq->cpus);
+	unsigned int lpj;
 
 	if (freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)
 		return NOTIFY_OK;
 
-	if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu)) {
-		per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) =
-			per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
-		per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+	if (!per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first)) {
+		for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus) {
+			per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu) =
+				per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
+			per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu) = freq->old;
+		}
+
 		if (!global_l_p_j_ref) {
 			global_l_p_j_ref = loops_per_jiffy;
 			global_l_p_j_ref_freq = freq->old;
@@ -778,10 +782,11 @@ static int cpufreq_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
 		loops_per_jiffy = cpufreq_scale(global_l_p_j_ref,
 						global_l_p_j_ref_freq,
 						freq->new);
-		per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy =
-			cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, cpu),
-					per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, cpu),
-					freq->new);
+
+		lpj = cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(l_p_j_ref, first),
+				    per_cpu(l_p_j_ref_freq, first), freq->new);
+		for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus)
+			per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu).loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
 	}
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH 3/7] ARM: twd: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates twd_cpufreq_transition() to use the new "cpus" field
and run twd_update_frequency() for each online CPU present in the
freqs->cpus.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
index b30eafeef096..df7db45d931b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
@@ -162,15 +162,18 @@ static int twd_cpufreq_transition(struct notifier_block *nb,
 	unsigned long state, void *data)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs = data;
+	int cpu;
 
 	/*
 	 * The twd clock events must be reprogrammed to account for the new
 	 * frequency.  The timer is local to a cpu, so cross-call to the
 	 * changing cpu.
 	 */
-	if (state == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE)
-		smp_call_function_single(freqs->cpu, twd_update_frequency,
-			NULL, 1);
+	if (state != CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE)
+		return NOTIFY_OK;
+
+	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, freqs->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
+		smp_call_function_single(cpu, twd_update_frequency, NULL, 1);
 
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

[PATCH 3/7] ARM: twd: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates twd_cpufreq_transition() to use the new "cpus" field
and run twd_update_frequency() for each online CPU present in the
freqs->cpus.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
index b30eafeef096..df7db45d931b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_twd.c
@@ -162,15 +162,18 @@ static int twd_cpufreq_transition(struct notifier_block *nb,
 	unsigned long state, void *data)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs = data;
+	int cpu;
 
 	/*
 	 * The twd clock events must be reprogrammed to account for the new
 	 * frequency.  The timer is local to a cpu, so cross-call to the
 	 * changing cpu.
 	 */
-	if (state == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE)
-		smp_call_function_single(freqs->cpu, twd_update_frequency,
-			NULL, 1);
+	if (state != CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE)
+		return NOTIFY_OK;
+
+	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, freqs->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
+		smp_call_function_single(cpu, twd_update_frequency, NULL, 1);
 
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH 4/7] sparc64: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates sparc64_cpufreq_notifier() to use the new "cpus" field
and update per-cpu data for all the related CPUs.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
index 3eb77943ce12..23544646695f 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
@@ -653,19 +653,23 @@ static int sparc64_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val
 				    void *data)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
-	unsigned int cpu = freq->cpu;
-	struct freq_table *ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+	unsigned int cpu;
+	struct freq_table *ft;
 
-	if (!ft->ref_freq) {
-		ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
-		ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
-	}
-	if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE  && freq->old < freq->new) ||
-	    (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
-		cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick =
-			cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref,
-				      ft->ref_freq,
-				      freq->new);
+	for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus) {
+		ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+
+		if (!ft->ref_freq) {
+			ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
+			ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
+		}
+
+		if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE  && freq->old < freq->new) ||
+		    (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
+			cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick =
+				cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref, ft->ref_freq,
+					      freq->new);
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

[PATCH 4/7] sparc64: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates sparc64_cpufreq_notifier() to use the new "cpus" field
and update per-cpu data for all the related CPUs.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
index 3eb77943ce12..23544646695f 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
+++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/time_64.c
@@ -653,19 +653,23 @@ static int sparc64_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val
 				    void *data)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
-	unsigned int cpu = freq->cpu;
-	struct freq_table *ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+	unsigned int cpu;
+	struct freq_table *ft;
 
-	if (!ft->ref_freq) {
-		ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
-		ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
-	}
-	if ((val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE  && freq->old < freq->new) ||
-	    (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
-		cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick -			cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref,
-				      ft->ref_freq,
-				      freq->new);
+	for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus) {
+		ft = &per_cpu(sparc64_freq_table, cpu);
+
+		if (!ft->ref_freq) {
+			ft->ref_freq = freq->old;
+			ft->clock_tick_ref = cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick;
+		}
+
+		if ((val = CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE  && freq->old < freq->new) ||
+		    (val = CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
+			cpu_data(cpu).clock_tick +				cpufreq_scale(ft->clock_tick_ref, ft->ref_freq,
+					      freq->new);
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

Re: [PATCH 4/7] sparc64: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[David Miller]

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:12:50 +0530

> The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
> callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
> the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
> policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
> cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
> online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.
> 
> This patch updates sparc64_cpufreq_notifier() to use the new "cpus" field
> and update per-cpu data for all the related CPUs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

Re: [PATCH 4/7] sparc64: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[David Miller]

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:12:50 +0530

> The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
> callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
> the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
> policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
> cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
> online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.
> 
> This patch updates sparc64_cpufreq_notifier() to use the new "cpus" field
> and update per-cpu data for all the related CPUs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

[PATCH 5/7] x86/tsc: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates time_cpufreq_notifier() to use the new "cpus" field,
update per-cpu data for all the related CPUs and call set_cyc2ns_scale()
for all online related_cpus.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
index 3fae23834069..587a6aa72f38 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
@@ -956,28 +956,37 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
 				void *data)
 {
 	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
-	unsigned long *lpj;
-
-	lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
-		lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
-#endif
+	bool boot_cpu = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS;
+	unsigned long lpj;
+	int cpu;
 
 	if (!ref_freq) {
 		ref_freq = freq->old;
-		loops_per_jiffy_ref = *lpj;
 		tsc_khz_ref = tsc_khz;
+
+		if (boot_cpu)
+			loops_per_jiffy_ref = boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
+		else
+			loops_per_jiffy_ref = cpu_data(cpumask_first(freq->cpus)).loops_per_jiffy;
 	}
+
 	if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE  && freq->old < freq->new) ||
 			(val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
-		*lpj = cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
-
+		lpj = cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
 		tsc_khz = cpufreq_scale(tsc_khz_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
+
 		if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
 			mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
 
-		set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
+		if (boot_cpu) {
+			boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
+		} else {
+			for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus)
+				cpu_data(cpu).loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
+		}
+
+		for_each_cpu_and(cpu, freq->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
+			set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, cpu, rdtsc());
 	}
 
 	return 0;
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86/tsc: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
> callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
> the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
> policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
> cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
> online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.
>
> This patch updates time_cpufreq_notifier() to use the new "cpus" field,
> update per-cpu data for all the related CPUs and call set_cyc2ns_scale()
> for all online related_cpus.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> index 3fae23834069..587a6aa72f38 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -956,28 +956,37 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
>                                 void *data)
>  {
>         struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> -       unsigned long *lpj;
> -
> -       lpj = &boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> -       if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> -               lpj = &cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy;
> -#endif
> +       bool boot_cpu = !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS;
> +       unsigned long lpj;
> +       int cpu;
>
>         if (!ref_freq) {
>                 ref_freq = freq->old;
> -               loops_per_jiffy_ref = *lpj;
>                 tsc_khz_ref = tsc_khz;
> +
> +               if (boot_cpu)
> +                       loops_per_jiffy_ref = boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy;
> +               else
> +                       loops_per_jiffy_ref = cpu_data(cpumask_first(freq->cpus)).loops_per_jiffy;
>         }
> +
>         if ((val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE  && freq->old < freq->new) ||
>                         (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)) {
> -               *lpj = cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
> -
> +               lpj = cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
>                 tsc_khz = cpufreq_scale(tsc_khz_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
> +
>                 if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
>                         mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
>
> -               set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> +               if (boot_cpu) {
> +                       boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
> +               } else {
> +                       for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus)

This needs to iterate over policy->cpus or you change the behavior.

Not that it will matter a lot (x86 in one CPU per policy anyway in the
vast majority of cases), but it is a change nevertheless.  Moreover,
I'm not even sure if doing that for offline CPUs makes sense.

> +                               cpu_data(cpu).loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
> +               }
> +
> +               for_each_cpu_and(cpu, freq->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
> +                       set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, cpu, rdtsc());
>         }
>
>         return 0;
> --

Re: [PATCH 5/7] x86/tsc: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 10:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > -               set_cyc2ns_scale(tsc_khz, freq->cpu, rdtsc());
> > +               if (boot_cpu) {
> > +                       boot_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
> > +               } else {
> > +                       for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->cpus)
> 
> This needs to iterate over policy->cpus or you change the behavior.
> 
> Not that it will matter a lot (x86 in one CPU per policy anyway in the
> vast majority of cases), but it is a change nevertheless.  Moreover,
> I'm not even sure if doing that for offline CPUs makes sense.

Okay.

-- 
viresh

[PATCH 6/7] KVM: x86: Update cpufreq transition notifier to handle multiple CPUs

[Viresh Kumar]

The cpufreq core currently calls the cpufreq transition notifier
callback once for each affected CPU. This is going to change soon and
the cpufreq core will call the callback only once for each cpufreq
policy. The callback must look at the newly added field in struct
cpufreq_freqs, "cpus", which contains policy->related_cpus (both
online/offline CPUs) and perform per-cpu actions for them if any.

This patch updates kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier() to use the new "cpus"
field and perform the per-cpu activity for all online CPUs in this
cpumask.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 941f932373d0..24eb6123391d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -6648,10 +6648,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
 }
 #endif
 
-static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
-				     void *data)
+static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
 {
-	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
 	struct kvm *kvm;
 	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
 	int i, send_ipi = 0;
@@ -6695,17 +6693,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
 	 *
 	 */
 
-	if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
-		return 0;
-	if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
-		return 0;
-
-	smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
+	smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
 
 	spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
 	list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
 		kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
-			if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
+			if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
 				continue;
 			kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
 			if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
@@ -6727,8 +6720,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
 		 * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
 		 * so the guest will not see stale values.
 		 */
-		smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
+		smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
 	}
+}
+
+static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
+				     void *data)
+{
+	struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
+	int cpu;
+
+	if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
+		return 0;
+	if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
+		return 0;
+
+	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, freq->cpus, cpu_online_mask)
+		__kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

[PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifiers only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

Now that all the transition notifier callbacks are updated to not rely
on freqs->cpu and perform actions for all CPUs in the freqs->cpus field,
it is time to get rid of freqs->cpu field and call the notifiers only
once for each cpufreq policy.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 18 +++++++++---------
 include/linux/cpufreq.h   |  1 -
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index b1b012169f00..ecea73598956 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -306,6 +306,8 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 				      struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs,
 				      unsigned int state)
 {
+	int cpu;
+
 	BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
 
 	if (cpufreq_disabled())
@@ -331,10 +333,8 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 			}
 		}
 
-		for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus) {
-			srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
-						 CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
-		}
+		srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+					 CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
 
 		adjust_jiffies(CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE, freqs);
 		break;
@@ -344,11 +344,11 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
 		pr_debug("FREQ: %u - CPUs: %*pbl\n", freqs->new,
 			 cpumask_pr_args(policy->cpus));
 
-		for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus) {
-			trace_cpu_frequency(freqs->new, freqs->cpu);
-			srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
-						 CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
-		}
+		for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
+			trace_cpu_frequency(freqs->new, cpu);
+
+		srcu_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_transition_notifier_list,
+					 CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE, freqs);
 
 		cpufreq_stats_record_transition(policy, freqs->new);
 		policy->cur = freqs->new;
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index dd318363dfc2..1af7ecad30c1 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
@@ -44,7 +44,6 @@ enum cpufreq_table_sorting {
 
 struct cpufreq_freqs {
 	struct cpumask *cpus;
-	unsigned int cpu;	/* cpu nr */
 	unsigned int old;
 	unsigned int new;
 	u8 flags;		/* flags of cpufreq_driver, see below. */
-- 
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.

Why isn't it efficient?

Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
the code carries out the iteration.

I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
policy?  If so, then why?

> This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> call for each policy.

Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.

Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.

Why isn't it efficient?

Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
the code carries out the iteration.

I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
policy?  If so, then why?

> This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> call for each policy.

Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.

Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.

Why isn't it efficient?

Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
the code carries out the iteration.

I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
policy?  If so, then why?

> This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> call for each policy.

Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.

Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.

Why isn't it efficient?

Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
the code carries out the iteration.

I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
policy?  If so, then why?

> This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> call for each policy.

Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.

Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:28 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
>
> Why isn't it efficient?
>
> Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> the code carries out the iteration.
>
> I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> policy?  If so, then why?
>
> > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > call for each policy.
>
> Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
>
> Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

It also looks to me like all that needs to be one patch, or you have
the ugly transition situation in which notifiers are still invoked for
each CPU, but they assume to be invoked once per policy.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:28 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
>
> Why isn't it efficient?
>
> Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> the code carries out the iteration.
>
> I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> policy?  If so, then why?
>
> > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > call for each policy.
>
> Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
>
> Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

It also looks to me like all that needs to be one patch, or you have
the ugly transition situation in which notifiers are still invoked for
each CPU, but they assume to be invoked once per policy.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:28 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
>
> Why isn't it efficient?
>
> Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> the code carries out the iteration.
>
> I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> policy?  If so, then why?
>
> > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > call for each policy.
>
> Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
>
> Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

It also looks to me like all that needs to be one patch, or you have
the ugly transition situation in which notifiers are still invoked for
each CPU, but they assume to be invoked once per policy.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 10:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:28 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> >
> > Why isn't it efficient?
> >
> > Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> > for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> > the code carries out the iteration.
> >
> > I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> > policy?  If so, then why?
> >
> > > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > > call for each policy.
> >
> > Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> > the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> > too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
> >
> > Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> > just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> > per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.
> 
> It also looks to me like all that needs to be one patch, or you have
> the ugly transition situation in which notifiers are still invoked for
> each CPU, but they assume to be invoked once per policy.

I assumed that calling something like set_cyc2ns_scale() in x86
multiple times for each CPU shouldn't be that bad even if the
frequency changes only once, but such things may actually have
side-effects. I should merged them all.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 10:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:28 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> >
> > Why isn't it efficient?
> >
> > Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> > for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> > the code carries out the iteration.
> >
> > I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> > policy?  If so, then why?
> >
> > > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > > call for each policy.
> >
> > Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> > the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> > too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
> >
> > Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> > just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> > per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.
> 
> It also looks to me like all that needs to be one patch, or you have
> the ugly transition situation in which notifiers are still invoked for
> each CPU, but they assume to be invoked once per policy.

I assumed that calling something like set_cyc2ns_scale() in x86
multiple times for each CPU shouldn't be that bad even if the
frequency changes only once, but such things may actually have
side-effects. I should merged them all.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 10:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:28 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> >
> > Why isn't it efficient?
> >
> > Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> > for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> > the code carries out the iteration.
> >
> > I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> > policy?  If so, then why?
> >
> > > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > > call for each policy.
> >
> > Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> > the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> > too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
> >
> > Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> > just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> > per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.
> 
> It also looks to me like all that needs to be one patch, or you have
> the ugly transition situation in which notifiers are still invoked for
> each CPU, but they assume to be invoked once per policy.

I assumed that calling something like set_cyc2ns_scale() in x86
multiple times for each CPU shouldn't be that bad even if the
frequency changes only once, but such things may actually have
side-effects. I should merged them all.

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> 
> Why isn't it efficient?
> 
> Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> the code carries out the iteration.

Even if per-cpu iteration has to be done at some place, we are
avoiding function calls here and the code/locking in the notifier
layer as well. Will get more such info into changelog.

> I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> policy?  If so, then why?

You mean about the offline CPUs? I mentioned the rationale in 1/7. It
is to avoid bugs where we may end up using a stale value if the CPUs
are offlined/onlined regularly.

> > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > call for each policy.
> 
> Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.

24 different parts of the kernel register for transition notifiers and
only 5 required update here, the other 19 don't need to do per-cpu
stuff and they also get benefited by this work. Those routines will
get called only once now, instead of once per every CPU of the policy.

> Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

I did that because they don't need to use the other fields of the
policy today and that doesn't look likely in near future as well.

I can do that if you want, but not sure why more information should be
provided than required.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> 
> Why isn't it efficient?
> 
> Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> the code carries out the iteration.

Even if per-cpu iteration has to be done at some place, we are
avoiding function calls here and the code/locking in the notifier
layer as well. Will get more such info into changelog.

> I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> policy?  If so, then why?

You mean about the offline CPUs? I mentioned the rationale in 1/7. It
is to avoid bugs where we may end up using a stale value if the CPUs
are offlined/onlined regularly.

> > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > call for each policy.
> 
> Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.

24 different parts of the kernel register for transition notifiers and
only 5 required update here, the other 19 don't need to do per-cpu
stuff and they also get benefited by this work. Those routines will
get called only once now, instead of once per every CPU of the policy.

> Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

I did that because they don't need to use the other fields of the
policy today and that doesn't look likely in near future as well.

I can do that if you want, but not sure why more information should be
provided than required.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> 
> Why isn't it efficient?
> 
> Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> the code carries out the iteration.

Even if per-cpu iteration has to be done at some place, we are
avoiding function calls here and the code/locking in the notifier
layer as well. Will get more such info into changelog.

> I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> policy?  If so, then why?

You mean about the offline CPUs? I mentioned the rationale in 1/7. It
is to avoid bugs where we may end up using a stale value if the CPUs
are offlined/onlined regularly.

> > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > call for each policy.
> 
> Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.

24 different parts of the kernel register for transition notifiers and
only 5 required update here, the other 19 don't need to do per-cpu
stuff and they also get benefited by this work. Those routines will
get called only once now, instead of once per every CPU of the policy.

> Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.

I did that because they don't need to use the other fields of the
policy today and that doesn't look likely in near future as well.

I can do that if you want, but not sure why more information should be
provided than required.

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 14-03-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> >
> > Why isn't it efficient?
> >
> > Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> > for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> > the code carries out the iteration.
>
> Even if per-cpu iteration has to be done at some place, we are
> avoiding function calls here and the code/locking in the notifier
> layer as well. Will get more such info into changelog.
>
> > I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> > policy?  If so, then why?
>
> You mean about the offline CPUs? I mentioned the rationale in 1/7. It
> is to avoid bugs where we may end up using a stale value if the CPUs
> are offlined/onlined regularly.

I'm not really convinced about this.  CPU online really should take
care of updating everything anyway.

> > > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > > call for each policy.
> >
> > Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> > the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> > too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
>
> 24 different parts of the kernel register for transition notifiers and
> only 5 required update here, the other 19 don't need to do per-cpu
> stuff and they also get benefited by this work. Those routines will
> get called only once now, instead of once per every CPU of the policy.

This is a much better rationale for the change than the one given
originally IMO. :-)

> > Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> > just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> > per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.
>
> I did that because they don't need to use the other fields of the
> policy today and that doesn't look likely in near future as well.

But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively.  That
would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 14-03-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> >
> > Why isn't it efficient?
> >
> > Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> > for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> > the code carries out the iteration.
>
> Even if per-cpu iteration has to be done at some place, we are
> avoiding function calls here and the code/locking in the notifier
> layer as well. Will get more such info into changelog.
>
> > I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> > policy?  If so, then why?
>
> You mean about the offline CPUs? I mentioned the rationale in 1/7. It
> is to avoid bugs where we may end up using a stale value if the CPUs
> are offlined/onlined regularly.

I'm not really convinced about this.  CPU online really should take
care of updating everything anyway.

> > > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > > call for each policy.
> >
> > Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> > the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> > too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
>
> 24 different parts of the kernel register for transition notifiers and
> only 5 required update here, the other 19 don't need to do per-cpu
> stuff and they also get benefited by this work. Those routines will
> get called only once now, instead of once per every CPU of the policy.

This is a much better rationale for the change than the one given
originally IMO. :-)

> > Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> > just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> > per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.
>
> I did that because they don't need to use the other fields of the
> policy today and that doesn't look likely in near future as well.

But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively.  That
would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 14-03-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> >
> > Why isn't it efficient?
> >
> > Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> > for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> > the code carries out the iteration.
>
> Even if per-cpu iteration has to be done at some place, we are
> avoiding function calls here and the code/locking in the notifier
> layer as well. Will get more such info into changelog.
>
> > I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> > policy?  If so, then why?
>
> You mean about the offline CPUs? I mentioned the rationale in 1/7. It
> is to avoid bugs where we may end up using a stale value if the CPUs
> are offlined/onlined regularly.

I'm not really convinced about this.  CPU online really should take
care of updating everything anyway.

> > > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > > call for each policy.
> >
> > Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> > the notifiers aren't.  They actually get more complex, conceptually
> > too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
>
> 24 different parts of the kernel register for transition notifiers and
> only 5 required update here, the other 19 don't need to do per-cpu
> stuff and they also get benefited by this work. Those routines will
> get called only once now, instead of once per every CPU of the policy.

This is a much better rationale for the change than the one given
originally IMO. :-)

> > Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> > just passing a policy pointer.  If you change things from per-CPU to
> > per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.
>
> I did that because they don't need to use the other fields of the
> policy today and that doesn't look likely in near future as well.

But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively.  That
would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 11:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
> cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively.  That
> would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.

Right, that's what I also thought after your previous email. Will pass
the policy pointer instead.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 11:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
> cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively.  That
> would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.

Right, that's what I also thought after your previous email. Will pass
the policy pointer instead.

-- 
viresh

Re: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy

[Viresh Kumar]

On 14-03-19, 11:55, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
> cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively.  That
> would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.

Right, that's what I also thought after your previous email. Will pass
the policy pointer instead.

-- 
viresh

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel