linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7][Update] 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]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j-NKveJEN9fuySrbWDy++rWKTr_QWLY3vcA7Df0e3rGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:54:05 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	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 v5 7/7][Update] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on
 scheduler utilization data

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 17/03/16 01:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
>> +                             unsigned int next_freq)
>> +{
>> +     struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
>> +
>> +     sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
>> +
>> +     if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
>> +             if (next_freq > policy->max)
>> +                     next_freq = policy->max;
>> +             else if (next_freq < policy->min)
>> +                     next_freq = policy->min;
>> +
>> +             if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) {
>> +                     trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id());
>> +                     return;
>> +             }
>> +             sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
>> +             next_freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
>> +             if (next_freq == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
>> +                     return;
>> +
>> +             policy->cur = next_freq;
>> +             trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
>> +     } else if (sg_policy->next_freq != next_freq) {
>> +             sg_policy->work_cpu = smp_processor_id();
>
>   +             sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
>

Doh.

>> +             irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
>> +     }
>> +}
>
> Or we remain at max_f :-).

Sure, thanks!

Will fix.