[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <dadd359a7fc0f719b9e95161b2ac469e1a3c70cc.1525861952.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 16:05:24 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH V2] sched/schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX
The schedutil driver sets sg_policy->next_freq to UINT_MAX on certain
occasions to discard the cached value of next freq:
- In sugov_start(), when the schedutil governor is started for a group
of CPUs.
- And whenever we need to force a freq update before rate-limit
duration, which happens when:
- there is an update in cpufreq policy limits.
- Or when the utilization of DL scheduling class increases.
In return, get_next_freq() doesn't return a cached next_freq value but
recalculates the next frequency instead.
But having special meaning for a particular value of frequency makes the
code less readable and error prone. We recently fixed a bug where the
UINT_MAX value was considered as valid frequency in
sugov_update_single().
All we need is a flag which can be used to discard the value of
sg_policy->next_freq and we already have need_freq_update for that. Lets
reuse it instead of setting next_freq to UINT_MAX.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
V2:
- Rebased over the fix sent by Rafael
lkml.kernel.org/r/2276196.ev9rMjHTR0@...ire.rjw.lan
- Remove the additional check from sugov_update_single() as well.
- This is for 4.18 now instead of stable kernels.
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 18 ++++++------------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index e23e84724f39..daaca23697dc 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -95,15 +95,8 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
return false;
- if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update)) {
- sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
- /*
- * This happens when limits change, so forget the previous
- * next_freq value and force an update.
- */
- sg_policy->next_freq = UINT_MAX;
+ if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update))
return true;
- }
delta_ns = time - sg_policy->last_freq_update_time;
@@ -165,8 +158,10 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy,
freq = (freq + (freq >> 2)) * util / max;
- if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && sg_policy->next_freq != UINT_MAX)
+ if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update)
return sg_policy->next_freq;
+
+ sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = freq;
return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq);
}
@@ -305,8 +300,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
* Do not reduce the frequency if the CPU has not been idle
* recently, as the reduction is likely to be premature then.
*/
- if (busy && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq &&
- sg_policy->next_freq != UINT_MAX) {
+ if (busy && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq) {
next_f = sg_policy->next_freq;
/* Reset cached freq as next_freq has changed */
@@ -671,7 +665,7 @@ static int sugov_start(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
sg_policy->freq_update_delay_ns = sg_policy->tunables->rate_limit_us * NSEC_PER_USEC;
sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = 0;
- sg_policy->next_freq = UINT_MAX;
+ sg_policy->next_freq = 0;
sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = 0;
--
2.15.0.194.g9af6a3dea062
Powered by blists - more mailing lists