[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0b9e332d-f479-ed3d-78ce-6386383d827b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 15:31:54 +0200
From: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary frequency updates due to
mismatch
On 04/05/2022 10:21, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> For some platforms, the frequency returned by hardware may be slightly
> different from what is provided in the frequency table. For example,
> hardware may return 499 MHz instead of 500 MHz. In such cases it is
> better to avoid getting into unnecessary frequency updates, as we may
> end up switching policy->cur between the two and sending unnecessary
> pre/post update notifications, etc.
>
> This patch has chosen allows the hardware frequency and table frequency
> to deviate by 1 MHz for now, we may want to increase it a bit later on
> if someone still complains.
>
> Reported-by: Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 0d58b0f8f3af..233e8af48848 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <linux/suspend.h>
> #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
> #include <linux/tick.h>
> +#include <linux/units.h>
> #include <trace/events/power.h>
>
> static LIST_HEAD(cpufreq_policy_list);
> @@ -1708,6 +1709,16 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
> return new_freq;
>
> if (policy->cur != new_freq) {
> + /*
> + * For some platforms, the frequency returned by hardware may be
> + * slightly different from what is provided in the frequency
> + * table, for example hardware may return 499 MHz instead of 500
> + * MHz. In such cases it is better to avoid getting into
> + * unnecessary frequency updates.
> + */
> + if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < HZ_PER_MHZ)
> + return policy->cur;
> +
> cpufreq_out_of_sync(policy, new_freq);
> if (update)
> schedule_work(&policy->update);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists