[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53957A30.4030003@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:41:12 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net
CC: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arvind.chauhan@....com,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pavel@....cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH Resend] cpufreq: governor: remove copy_prev_load from
'struct cpu_dbs_common_info'
On 06/09/2014 02:21 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 'copy_prev_load' was recently added by commit: 18b46ab (cpufreq: governor: Be
> friendly towards latency-sensitive bursty workloads).
>
> It actually is a bit redundant as we also have 'prev_load' which can store any
> integer value and can be used instead of 'copy_prev_load' by setting it zero.
>
> True load can also turn out to be zero during long idle intervals (and hence the
> actual value of 'prev_load' and the overloaded value can clash). However this is
> not a problem because, if the true load was really zero in the previous
> interval, it makes sense to evaluate the load afresh for the current interval
> rather than copying the previous load.
>
> So, drop 'copy_prev_load' and use 'prev_load' instead.
>
> Update comments as well to make it more clear.
>
> There is another change here which was probably missed by Srivatsa during the
> last version of updates he made. The unlikely in the 'if' statement was covering
> only half of the condition and the whole line should actually come under it.
>
> Also checkpatch is made more silent as it was reporting this (--strict option):
>
> CHECK: Alignment should match open parenthesis
> + if (unlikely(wall_time > (2 * sampling_rate) &&
> + j_cdbs->prev_load)) {
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> ---
> Resend: Updated comments/logs as suggested by Srivatsa.
>
Looks good!
Reviewed-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 9 +++++----
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> index 9004450..1b44496 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> @@ -131,15 +131,25 @@ void dbs_check_cpu(struct dbs_data *dbs_data, int cpu)
> * timer would not have fired during CPU-idle periods. Hence
> * an unusually large 'wall_time' (as compared to the sampling
> * rate) indicates this scenario.
> + *
> + * prev_load can be zero in two cases and we must recalculate it
> + * for both cases:
> + * - during long idle intervals
> + * - explicitly set to zero
> */
> - if (unlikely(wall_time > (2 * sampling_rate)) &&
> - j_cdbs->copy_prev_load) {
> + if (unlikely(wall_time > (2 * sampling_rate) &&
> + j_cdbs->prev_load)) {
> load = j_cdbs->prev_load;
> - j_cdbs->copy_prev_load = false;
> +
> + /*
> + * Perform a destructive copy, to ensure that we copy
> + * the previous load only once, upon the first wake-up
> + * from idle.
> + */
> + j_cdbs->prev_load = 0;
> } else {
> load = 100 * (wall_time - idle_time) / wall_time;
> j_cdbs->prev_load = load;
> - j_cdbs->copy_prev_load = true;
> }
>
> if (load > max_load)
> @@ -373,7 +383,6 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> (j_cdbs->prev_cpu_wall - j_cdbs->prev_cpu_idle);
> j_cdbs->prev_load = 100 * prev_load /
> (unsigned int) j_cdbs->prev_cpu_wall;
> - j_cdbs->copy_prev_load = true;
>
> if (ignore_nice)
> j_cdbs->prev_cpu_nice =
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
> index c2a5b7e..cc401d1 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h
> @@ -134,12 +134,13 @@ struct cpu_dbs_common_info {
> u64 prev_cpu_idle;
> u64 prev_cpu_wall;
> u64 prev_cpu_nice;
> - unsigned int prev_load;
> /*
> - * Flag to ensure that we copy the previous load only once, upon the
> - * first wake-up from idle.
> + * Used to keep track of load in the previous interval. However, when
> + * explicitly set to zero, it is used as a flag to ensure that we copy
> + * the previous load to the current interval only once, upon the first
> + * wake-up from idle.
> */
> - bool copy_prev_load;
> + unsigned int prev_load;
> struct cpufreq_policy *cur_policy;
> struct delayed_work work;
> /*
>
--
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