[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210224063927.1298-1-zbestahu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 14:39:27 +0800
From: Yue Hu <zbestahu@...il.com>
To: rjw@...ysocki.net, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
huyue2@...ong.com, zbestahu@....com
Subject: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq() before check to fast_switch_enabled
From: Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
Note that sugov_update_next_freq() may return false, that means the
caller sugov_fast_switch() will do nothing except fast switch check.
Similarly, sugov_deferred_update() also has unnecessary operations
of raw_spin_{lock,unlock} in sugov_update_single_freq() for that case.
So, let's call sugov_update_next_freq() before the fast switch check
to avoid unnecessary behaviors above. Accordingly, update interface
definition to sugov_deferred_update() and remove sugov_fast_switch()
since we will call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead.
Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
---
v2: remove sugov_fast_switch() and call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch()
directly instead, also update minor log message.
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index 41e498b..65fe2c8 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -114,19 +114,8 @@ static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
return true;
}
-static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
- unsigned int next_freq)
+static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
{
- if (sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq))
- cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq);
-}
-
-static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
- unsigned int next_freq)
-{
- if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq))
- return;
-
if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) {
sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
@@ -368,16 +357,19 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = cached_freq;
}
+ if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f))
+ return;
+
/*
* This code runs under rq->lock for the target CPU, so it won't run
* concurrently on two different CPUs for the same target and it is not
* necessary to acquire the lock in the fast switch case.
*/
if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
- sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_f);
} else {
raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
- sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy);
raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
}
}
@@ -456,12 +448,15 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) {
next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time);
+ if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f))
+ goto unlock;
+
if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled)
- sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_f);
else
- sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy);
}
-
+unlock:
raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
}
--
1.9.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists