From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:59:22 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5f85c2ddf7aa094d7d2ebebe8426f84fad0a99b7.1607617625.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> (raw) Every time I have stumbled upon this routine, I get confused with the way 'have_policy' is used and I have to dig in to understand why is it so. Here is an attempt to make it easier to understand, and hopefully it is an improvement. The 'have_policy' check was just an optimization to avoid writing to amu_fie_cpus in case we don't have to, but that optimization itself is creating more confusion than the real work. Lets just do that if all the CPUs support AMUs. It is much cleaner that way. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- V2: - Skip the have_policy check altogether - Updated subject and log arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 20 ++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c index f6faa697e83e..ebadc73449f9 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c @@ -199,14 +199,14 @@ static int freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate, u64 ref_rate) return 0; } -static inline bool +static inline void enable_policy_freq_counters(int cpu, cpumask_var_t valid_cpus) { struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); if (!policy) { pr_debug("CPU%d: No cpufreq policy found.\n", cpu); - return false; + return; } if (cpumask_subset(policy->related_cpus, valid_cpus)) @@ -214,8 +214,6 @@ enable_policy_freq_counters(int cpu, cpumask_var_t valid_cpus) amu_fie_cpus); cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); - - return true; } static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(amu_fie_key); @@ -225,7 +223,6 @@ static int __init init_amu_fie(void) { bool invariance_status = topology_scale_freq_invariant(); cpumask_var_t valid_cpus; - bool have_policy = false; int ret = 0; int cpu; @@ -245,17 +242,12 @@ static int __init init_amu_fie(void) continue; cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, valid_cpus); - have_policy |= enable_policy_freq_counters(cpu, valid_cpus); + enable_policy_freq_counters(cpu, valid_cpus); } - /* - * If we are not restricted by cpufreq policies, we only enable - * the use of the AMU feature for FIE if all CPUs support AMU. - * Otherwise, enable_policy_freq_counters has already enabled - * policy cpus. - */ - if (!have_policy && cpumask_equal(valid_cpus, cpu_present_mask)) - cpumask_or(amu_fie_cpus, amu_fie_cpus, valid_cpus); + /* Overwrite amu_fie_cpus if all CPUs support AMU */ + if (cpumask_equal(valid_cpus, cpu_present_mask)) + cpumask_copy(amu_fie_cpus, cpu_present_mask); if (!cpumask_empty(amu_fie_cpus)) { pr_info("CPUs[%*pbl]: counters will be used for FIE.", -- 2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 21:59:22 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <5f85c2ddf7aa094d7d2ebebe8426f84fad0a99b7.1607617625.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> (raw) Every time I have stumbled upon this routine, I get confused with the way 'have_policy' is used and I have to dig in to understand why is it so. Here is an attempt to make it easier to understand, and hopefully it is an improvement. The 'have_policy' check was just an optimization to avoid writing to amu_fie_cpus in case we don't have to, but that optimization itself is creating more confusion than the real work. Lets just do that if all the CPUs support AMUs. It is much cleaner that way. Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- V2: - Skip the have_policy check altogether - Updated subject and log arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 20 ++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c index f6faa697e83e..ebadc73449f9 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c @@ -199,14 +199,14 @@ static int freq_inv_set_max_ratio(int cpu, u64 max_rate, u64 ref_rate) return 0; } -static inline bool +static inline void enable_policy_freq_counters(int cpu, cpumask_var_t valid_cpus) { struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); if (!policy) { pr_debug("CPU%d: No cpufreq policy found.\n", cpu); - return false; + return; } if (cpumask_subset(policy->related_cpus, valid_cpus)) @@ -214,8 +214,6 @@ enable_policy_freq_counters(int cpu, cpumask_var_t valid_cpus) amu_fie_cpus); cpufreq_cpu_put(policy); - - return true; } static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(amu_fie_key); @@ -225,7 +223,6 @@ static int __init init_amu_fie(void) { bool invariance_status = topology_scale_freq_invariant(); cpumask_var_t valid_cpus; - bool have_policy = false; int ret = 0; int cpu; @@ -245,17 +242,12 @@ static int __init init_amu_fie(void) continue; cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, valid_cpus); - have_policy |= enable_policy_freq_counters(cpu, valid_cpus); + enable_policy_freq_counters(cpu, valid_cpus); } - /* - * If we are not restricted by cpufreq policies, we only enable - * the use of the AMU feature for FIE if all CPUs support AMU. - * Otherwise, enable_policy_freq_counters has already enabled - * policy cpus. - */ - if (!have_policy && cpumask_equal(valid_cpus, cpu_present_mask)) - cpumask_or(amu_fie_cpus, amu_fie_cpus, valid_cpus); + /* Overwrite amu_fie_cpus if all CPUs support AMU */ + if (cpumask_equal(valid_cpus, cpu_present_mask)) + cpumask_copy(amu_fie_cpus, cpu_present_mask); if (!cpumask_empty(amu_fie_cpus)) { pr_info("CPUs[%*pbl]: counters will be used for FIE.", -- 2.25.0.rc1.19.g042ed3e048af _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next reply other threads:[~2020-12-10 16:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-10 16:29 Viresh Kumar [this message] 2020-12-10 16:29 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check Viresh Kumar 2020-12-10 16:29 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] arm64: topology: Reorder init_amu_fie() a bit Viresh Kumar 2020-12-10 16:29 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-14 14:00 ` Ionela Voinescu 2020-12-14 14:00 ` Ionela Voinescu 2020-12-15 4:49 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-15 4:49 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-14 12:57 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] arm64: topology: Avoid the have_policy check Ionela Voinescu 2020-12-14 12:57 ` Ionela Voinescu
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=5f85c2ddf7aa094d7d2ebebe8426f84fad0a99b7.1607617625.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org \ --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \ --cc=will@kernel.org \ /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.