[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201210123439.zugex2zzbmy6z3le@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 18:04:39 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: topology: Cleanup init_amu_fie() a bit
On 10-12-20, 11:29, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> On Thursday 10 Dec 2020 at 16:25:06 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > - But right after that we call static_branch_disable() if we aren't
> > invariant (call to topology_scale_freq_invariant()), and this will
> > happen if amu_fie_cpus doesn't have all the CPUs there. Isn't it? So
> > partial amu support is already disallowed, without cpufreq.
> >
>
> This is the point that needs clarification:
>
> topology_scale_freq_invariant()) = cpufreq_supports_freq_invariance() ||
> arch_freq_counters_available(cpu_online_mask);
>
> This checks if the full system is invariant.
>
> The possible scenarios are:
>
> - All online CPUs support AMUs - arch_freq_counters_available() will
> return true -> topology_scale_freq_invariant() will return true.
>
> - None of the CPUs support AMUs, or part of the CPUs support AMUs - the
> system is invariant only if cpufreq is invariant (dependent on
> whether the driver implements the proper callbacks that results in
> calling arch_set_freq_scale() in cpufreq core.
>
> - Either cpufreq does not support invariance or we don't have AMU
> support on all CPUs -> the system is not invariant so we disable
> the AMU static key that guards the calls to
> topology_scale_freq_tick() - we would not want to set a scale factor
> for only a part of the CPUs.
>
> So whether were are or are not invariant does not depend only on the AMU
> presence, but also on the cpufreq support for invariance. We have to
> disable invariance altogether (including the AMU guarding static key)
> if the system is not invariant (it no all CPUs have means to provide the
> scale).
Okay, I think I mis-assumed that amu_fie_cpus will get set by
enable_policy_freq_counters() even for CPUs where AMU support isn't
there, it won't be though.
Having said that, this patch, along with the minor suggestion in the
commit log, still stands fine, right ? The other patch which I sent is
probably incorrect due to the above assumption I had.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists