[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1527632274.2951.41.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:17:54 -0700
From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH v2 3/6] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add
update_util_hook for HWP
On Tue, 2018-05-29 at 09:37 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:47 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
> <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > When HWP dynamic boost is active then set the HWP specific update
> > util
> > hook.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel
> > .com>
>
> Splitting this patch out of the next one is sort of artificial.
I will merge to the patch where the hwp_boost is getting used.
Thanks,
Srinivas
>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > index 6ad46e07cad6..382160570b5f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static struct pstate_funcs pstate_funcs
> > __read_mostly;
> >
> > static int hwp_active __read_mostly;
> > static bool per_cpu_limits __read_mostly;
> > +static bool hwp_boost __read_mostly;
>
> Because of this, among other things.
>
> >
> > static struct cpufreq_driver *intel_pstate_driver __read_mostly;
> >
> > @@ -1461,6 +1462,11 @@ static inline bool
> > intel_pstate_hwp_boost_down(struct cpudata *cpu)
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > +static inline void intel_pstate_update_util_hwp(struct
> > update_util_data *data,
> > + u64 time, unsigned
> > int flags)
> > +{
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline void intel_pstate_calc_avg_perf(struct cpudata *cpu)
> > {
> > struct sample *sample = &cpu->sample;
> > @@ -1764,7 +1770,7 @@ static void
> > intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook(unsigned int cpu_num)
> > {
> > struct cpudata *cpu = all_cpu_data[cpu_num];
> >
> > - if (hwp_active)
> > + if (hwp_active && !hwp_boost)
> > return;
> >
> > if (cpu->update_util_set)
> > @@ -1772,8 +1778,12 @@ static void
> > intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook(unsigned int cpu_num)
> >
> > /* Prevent intel_pstate_update_util() from using stale
> > data. */
> > cpu->sample.time = 0;
> > - cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(cpu_num, &cpu->update_util,
> > - intel_pstate_update_util);
> > + if (hwp_active)
> > + cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(cpu_num, &cpu-
> > >update_util,
> > + intel_pstate_update_ut
> > il_hwp);
> > + else
> > + cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(cpu_num, &cpu-
> > >update_util,
> > + intel_pstate_update_ut
> > il);
> > cpu->update_util_set = true;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1885,8 +1895,11 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct
> > cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook(policy->cpu);
> > }
> >
> > - if (hwp_active)
> > + if (hwp_active) {
> > + if (!hwp_boost)
> > + intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(policy-
> > >cpu);
> > intel_pstate_hwp_set(policy->cpu);
> > + }
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&intel_pstate_limits_lock);
> >
> > --
> > 2.13.6
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists