[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250116065408.kjifylpgse5f3k3h@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 12:24:08 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, zhanjie9@...ilicon.com,
lihuisong@...wei.com, fanghao11@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set default
per-policy boost flag
On 15-01-25, 18:01, Lifeng Zheng wrote:
> In cpufreq_online() of cpufreq.c, the per-policy boost flag is already set
> to mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init but using freq_table to
> judge if the policy has boost frequency. There are two drawbacks to this
> approach:
>
> 1. It doesn't work for the cpufreq drivers that do not use a frequency
> table. For now, acpi-cpufreq and amd-pstate have to enable boost in policy
> initialization. And cppc_cpufreq never set policy to boost when going
> online no matter what the cpufreq_driver boost flag is.
>
> 2. If the cpu goes offline when cpufreq_driver boost enabled and then goes
> online when cpufreq_driver boost disabled, the per-policy boost flag will
> unreasonably remain true.
Yeah, this is a problem. I agree. If the global boost is disabled,
then boost shouldn't be allowed for any of the policies.
> Running set_boost at the end of the online process is a more generic way
> for all cpufreq drivers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 03ae879d50b9..867bda3decfd 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1409,10 +1409,6 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
> goto out_free_policy;
> }
>
> - /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */
> - if (cpufreq_boost_enabled() && policy_has_boost_freq(policy))
> - policy->boost_enabled = true;
> -
> /*
> * The initialization has succeeded and the policy is online.
> * If there is a problem with its frequency table, take it
> @@ -1576,6 +1572,18 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu)
> if (new_policy && cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(cpufreq_driver))
> policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy);
>
> + /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */
> + if (cpufreq_boost_supported()) {
> + policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled();
> + ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled);
Maybe we can optimize here and not call set_boost() if policy's
boost_enabled is not changing at all.
if (policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) {
policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled();
ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled);
...
}
After this patch, maybe you should simplify the drivers as well, which
take care of enabling/boost at boot time or setting this flag ?
> + if (ret) {
> + /* If the set_boost fails, the online operation is not affected */
> + pr_info("%s: CPU%d: Cannot %s BOOST\n", __func__, policy->cpu,
> + policy->boost_enabled ? "enable" : "disable");
> + policy->boost_enabled = !policy->boost_enabled;
> + }
> + }
> +
> pr_debug("initialization complete\n");
>
> return 0;
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists