linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:38:55 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 07:14:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > +				unsigned int next_freq)
> > +{
> > +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > +
> > +	if (next_freq > policy->max)
> > +		next_freq = policy->max;
> > +	else if (next_freq < policy->min)
> > +		next_freq = policy->min;
> > +
> > +	sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> > +	if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) {
> > +		if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
> > +			trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id());
> > +
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> > +	if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
> > +		unsigned int freq;
> > +
> > +		freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
> 
> So you're assuming a RELATION_L for ->fast_switch() ?

Yes, I am.

> > +		if (freq == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
> > +			return;
> > +
> > +		policy->cur = freq;
> > +		trace_cpu_frequency(freq, smp_processor_id());
> > +	} else {
> > +		sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
> > +		irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
> > +	}
> > +}
> 
> 
> > +static void sugov_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> > +	__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
> > +				CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> 
> As per here, which I assume matches semantics on that point.

Correct.