From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753327AbdGJKbk (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 06:31:40 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34026 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752457AbdGJKbj (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 06:31:39 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support To: Viresh Kumar , Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Russell King - ARM Linux , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen References: <20170706094948.8779-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <22f004af-0158-8265-2da5-34743f294bfb@arm.com> <12829054.TWIodSo4bb@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170710093051.axnd7drdnsxgiu6f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170710094209.GJ2928@vireshk-i7> From: Dietmar Eggemann Message-ID: <5879943c-00f4-6148-411d-a71acced5eaa@arm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:31:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170710094209.GJ2928@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/07/17 10:42, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-07-17, 11:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 02:09:37PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Anyway, if everyone agrees that doing it in the core is the way to go (Peter?), >>> why don't you introduce a __weak function for setting policy->cur and >>> override it from your arch so as to call arch_set_freq_scale() from there? >>> >> >> So I'm terminally backlogged and my recent break didn't help any with >> that. >> >> I'm at a total loss as to what is proposed here and why we need it. I >> tried reading both the Changelog and patch but came up empty. > > Dietmar is proposing the implementation of arch_set_freq_scale() for ARM (32/64) > platforms here with following equation in drivers/base/arch_topology.c: > > scale = (cur_freq << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / max_freq > > The only variable part here is "cur_freq" and he is looking for sane ways to get > that value in the arch_topology.c file, so he can use that in the above > equation. He tried to use cpufreq transition notifiers earlier but they block us > from using fast switching. > > What he is proposing now is a function: > > void arch_set_freq_scale(struct cpumask *cpus, unsigned long cur_freq, > unsigned long max_freq); > > which has to be called by someone after the frequency of the CPU is changed. > > Dietmar proposed that this be called by cpufreq core and Rafael was wondering if > the cpufreq drivers should call it. Dietmar's argument is that it will be used > for the entire ARM architecture this way and wouldn't lead to redundant core > across drivers. > > Hope I didn't confuse you more with this :) > Perfect summary, thanks Viresh! This is required for architectures (like arm/arm64) which do not have any other way to know about the current CPU frequency. X86 can do the frequency invariance support based on APERF/MPERF already today so it does not need the support from cpufreq.