| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 12:30:06 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Cc: cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Jean Pihet <j-pihet@...com>, markgross <markgross@...gnar.org>,
kyungmin.park@...sung.com, myungjoo.ham@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] CPUfreq ondemand: handle QoS request on DVFS
response latency
On Wed 2012-02-22 17:03:35, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> With QoS class, DVFS_RESPONSE_LATENCY, users (device drivers and
> userspace processes) may express the desired maximum response latency
> from DVFS mechanisms such as CPUfreq's ondemand governors. Based on such
> QoS requests, the ondemand governor may flexibly adjust sampling rate
> accordingly unless it goes below the min_sampling_rate.
>
> The benefit of having DVFS_RESPONSE_LATENCY is to have faster response
> from user inputs (mouse clicks, keyboard inputs, touchscreen touches,
> and others) without increasing frequency unconditionally. Because some
> input events may not require any performance increases, increasing the
> frequency unconditionally for inputs may simply consume too much energy.
> Adjusting sampling rate based on user inputs enabled to increase
> frequency with less latency if it requires and not to increase frequency
> if it does not require.
>
> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>
>
> --
> This patch depends on the patch
> "PM / QoS: Introduce new classes: DMA-Throughput and DVFS-Latency".
> and the patch
> "CPUfreq ondemand: update sampling rate without waiting for next
> sampling"
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 108 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> index 2d66649..b9188f1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> #include <linux/tick.h>
> #include <linux/ktime.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_qos.h>
>
> /*
> * dbs is used in this file as a shortform for demandbased switching
> @@ -93,6 +94,7 @@ struct cpu_dbs_info_s {
> * when user is changing the governor or limits.
> */
> struct mutex timer_mutex;
> + bool activated; /* dbs_timer_init is in effect */
> };
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_dbs_info_s, od_cpu_dbs_info);
>
> @@ -111,6 +113,8 @@ static struct dbs_tuners {
> unsigned int sampling_down_factor;
> unsigned int powersave_bias;
> unsigned int io_is_busy;
> + struct notifier_block dvfs_lat_qos_db;
> + unsigned int dvfs_lat_qos_wants;
> } dbs_tuners_ins = {
> .up_threshold = DEF_FREQUENCY_UP_THRESHOLD,
> .sampling_down_factor = DEF_SAMPLING_DOWN_FACTOR,
> @@ -164,6 +168,23 @@ static inline cputime64_t get_cpu_iowait_time(unsigned int cpu, cputime64_t *wal
> }
>
> /*
> + * Find right sampling rate based on sampling_rate and
> + * QoS requests on dvfs latency.
> + */
> +static unsigned int effective_sampling_rate(void)
> +{
> + unsigned int effective;
> +
> + if (dbs_tuners_ins.dvfs_lat_qos_wants)
> + effective = min(dbs_tuners_ins.dvfs_lat_qos_wants,
> + dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate);
> + else
> + effective = dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate;
> +
> + return max(effective, min_sampling_rate);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * Find right freq to be set now with powersave_bias on.
> * Returns the freq_hi to be used right now and will set freq_hi_jiffies,
> * freq_lo, and freq_lo_jiffies in percpu area for averaging freqs.
> @@ -207,7 +228,7 @@ static unsigned int powersave_bias_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> dbs_info->freq_lo_jiffies = 0;
> return freq_lo;
> }
> - jiffies_total = usecs_to_jiffies(dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate);
> + jiffies_total = usecs_to_jiffies(effective_sampling_rate());
> jiffies_hi = (freq_avg - freq_lo) * jiffies_total;
> jiffies_hi += ((freq_hi - freq_lo) / 2);
> jiffies_hi /= (freq_hi - freq_lo);
> @@ -259,7 +280,8 @@ show_one(powersave_bias, powersave_bias);
>
> /**
> * update_sampling_rate - update sampling rate effective immediately if needed.
> - * @new_rate: new sampling rate
> + * @new_rate: new sampling rate. if it is 0, regard sampling rate is not
> + * changed and assume that qos request value is changed.
> *
> * If new rate is smaller than the old, simply updaing
> * dbs_tuners_int.sampling_rate might not be appropriate. For example,
> @@ -273,9 +295,13 @@ show_one(powersave_bias, powersave_bias);
> static void update_sampling_rate(unsigned int new_rate)
> {
> int cpu;
> + unsigned int effective;
> +
> +
> + if (new_rate)
> + dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = max(new_rate, min_sampling_rate);
>
> - dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = new_rate
> - = max(new_rate, min_sampling_rate);
> + effective = effective_sampling_rate();
>
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> @@ -283,21 +309,31 @@ static void update_sampling_rate(unsigned int new_rate)
> struct timer_list *timer;
> unsigned long appointed_at;
>
> + /*
> + * mutex_destory(&dbs_info->timer_mutex) should not happen
> + * in this context.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&dbs_mutex);
> +
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> - continue;
> + goto next;
> dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, policy->cpu);
> cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>
> + /* timer_mutex destroyed or will be destoyed soon */
> + if (!dbs_info->activated)
> + goto next;
> +
> mutex_lock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
>
> if (!delayed_work_pending(&dbs_info->work))
> - goto next;
> + goto next_timer_mutex;
>
> timer = &dbs_info->work.timer;
> appointed_at = timer->expires;
>
> - if (time_before(jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate),
> + if (time_before(jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(effective),
> appointed_at)) {
>
> mutex_unlock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
> @@ -305,12 +341,15 @@ static void update_sampling_rate(unsigned int new_rate)
> mutex_lock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
>
> schedule_delayed_work_on(dbs_info->cpu, &dbs_info->work,
> - usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate));
> + usecs_to_jiffies(effective));
>
> }
> -next:
> +next_timer_mutex:
> mutex_unlock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
> +next:
> + mutex_unlock(&dbs_mutex);
> }
> +
> }
I don't think gotos are helpful here. Can you use normal program
structure or move it to subroutine...?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists