* [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq() before check to fast_switch_enabled
@ 2021-02-24 6:39 Yue Hu
2021-02-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Yue Hu @ 2021-02-24 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rjw, viresh.kumar, mingo, peterz, juri.lelli, vincent.guittot
Cc: linux-pm, linux-kernel, huyue2, zbestahu
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. Accordingly, update interface
definition to sugov_deferred_update() and remove sugov_fast_switch()
since we will call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead.
Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com>
---
v2: remove sugov_fast_switch() and call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch()
directly instead, also update minor log message.
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index 41e498b..65fe2c8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -114,19 +114,8 @@ 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_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
{
- if (sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, 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)
-{
- 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 +357,19 @@ 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);
+ cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->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 +448,15 @@ 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);
+ cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->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);
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq() before check to fast_switch_enabled
2021-02-24 6:39 [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq() before check to fast_switch_enabled Yue Hu
@ 2021-02-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-03-10 11:20 ` Yue Hu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2021-02-24 6:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yue Hu
Cc: rjw, mingo, peterz, juri.lelli, vincent.guittot, linux-pm,
linux-kernel, huyue2, zbestahu
On 24-02-21, 14:39, 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. Accordingly, update interface
> definition to sugov_deferred_update() and remove sugov_fast_switch()
> since we will call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com>
> ---
> v2: remove sugov_fast_switch() and call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch()
> directly instead, also update minor log message.
>
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq() before check to fast_switch_enabled
2021-02-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
@ 2021-03-10 11:20 ` Yue Hu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Yue Hu @ 2021-03-10 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: rafael
Cc: rjw, mingo, peterz, juri.lelli, vincent.guittot, linux-pm,
linux-kernel, huyue2, zbestahu, viresh.kumar
Hi Rafael,
Please also review the patch.
I'm not sure if you have reviewed or not.
Thank you!
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:17:27 +0530
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 24-02-21, 14:39, 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. Accordingly, update interface
> > definition to sugov_deferred_update() and remove sugov_fast_switch()
> > since we will call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com>
> > ---
> > v2: remove sugov_fast_switch() and call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch()
> > directly instead, also update minor log message.
> >
> > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-03-10 11:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-02-24 6:39 [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq() before check to fast_switch_enabled Yue Hu
2021-02-24 6:47 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-03-10 11:20 ` Yue Hu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).