From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F572C433DF for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 01:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4512075F for ; Tue, 19 May 2020 01:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728053AbgESBEo (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 21:04:44 -0400 Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.191]:4813 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726696AbgESBEn (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 21:04:43 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B4266F56307FC087C700; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:04:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.166.215.101) by DGGEMS412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.212) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Tue, 19 May 2020 09:04:34 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: Add SW BOOST support for drivers without frequency table To: Viresh Kumar CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , , , , , , , , References: <1588929064-30270-1-git-send-email-wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com> <1588929064-30270-3-git-send-email-wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com> <5858421.kfVlu25t0p@kreacher> <7325b64c-85f7-21fe-3860-faa10ab1cf21@huawei.com> <20200518075309.xoon4vyfjywmteww@vireshk-i7> From: Xiongfeng Wang Message-ID: <9242eecc-6550-ea45-1ee6-1b75b48e8c0d@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 09:04:33 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200518075309.xoon4vyfjywmteww@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.166.215.101] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Viresh, Thanks for your reply ! On 2020/5/18 15:53, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Sorry for the delay from my side in replying to this thread. > > On 15-05-20, 09:49, Xiongfeng Wang wrote: >> On 2020/5/14 22:16, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 11:11:03 AM CEST Xiongfeng Wang wrote: >>>> Software-managed BOOST get the boost frequency by check the flag >>>> CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ at driver's frequency table. But some cpufreq driver >>>> don't have frequency table and use other methods to get the frequency >>>> range, such CPPC cpufreq driver. >>>> >>>> To add SW BOOST support for drivers without frequency table, we add >>>> members in 'cpufreq_policy.cpufreq_cpuinfo' to record the max frequency >>>> of boost mode and non-boost mode. The cpufreq driver initialize these two >>>> members when probing. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Xiongfeng Wang >>>> --- >>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- >>>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 2 ++ >>>> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>>> index 475fb1b..a299426 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>>> @@ -2508,15 +2508,22 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state) >>>> int ret = -EINVAL; >>>> >>>> for_each_active_policy(policy) { >>>> - if (!policy->freq_table) >>>> - continue; >>>> - >>>> - ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, >>>> + if (policy->freq_table) { >>>> + ret = cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(policy, >>>> policy->freq_table); >>>> - if (ret) { >>>> - pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update failed\n", >>>> - __func__); >>>> - break; >>>> + if (ret) { >>>> + pr_err("%s: Policy frequency update failed\n", >>>> + __func__); >>>> + break; >>>> + } >>>> + } else if (policy->cpuinfo.boost_max_freq) { >>>> + if (state) >>>> + policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.boost_max_freq; >>>> + else >>>> + policy->max = policy->cpuinfo.nonboost_max_freq; >>>> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = policy->max; >>>> + } else { >>>> + continue; >>>> } >>> >>> Why do you need to update this function? >> >> My original thought is to reuse the current SW BOOST code as possible, but this >> seems to change the cpufreq core too much. >> >> Thanks for your advice. This is better. I will provide a '->set_boost' callback >> for CPPC driver. But I will need to export 'cpufreq_policy_list' and make the >> macro 'for_each_active_policy' public. > > This can and should be avoided, I will rather move the for-each-policy > loop in cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() and call ->set_boost() for each > policy and pass policy as argument as well. You would be required to > update existing users of sw boost. Thanks for your advice. It's a good idea. I will change it in the next version. Thanks, Xiongfeng >