On Thursday, March 09, 2017 05:15:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
From: Steve Muckle smuckle.linux@gmail.com
A callback is considered remote if the target CPU is not the current CPU and if it is not managed by the policy managing the current CPU or the current CPU can't do DVFS on its behalf.
Queue the irq work for remote callbacks on the destination CPU. The irq work will carry out the fast or slow switch as appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle smuckle.linux@gmail.com [ vk: commit log, code cleanups, introduce dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu and drop late callback support to avoid IPIs on remote CPUs. ] Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c index b168c31f1c8f..9bad579b6b08 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c @@ -100,11 +100,11 @@ static void sugov_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, } static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
unsigned int next_freq)
int cpu, bool remote, unsigned int next_freq){ struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
- if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
- if (policy->fast_switch_enabled && !remote) { if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) { trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, policy->cpu); return;
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
irq_work_queue_on(&sg_policy->irq_work, cpu);} @@ -206,6 +206,20 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy; unsigned long util, max; unsigned int next_f;
- int cpu, this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- bool remote;
- if (policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu) {
/** Avoid sending IPI to 'hook->cpu' if this CPU can change* frequency on its behalf.*/remote = false;cpu = this_cpu;- } else {
cpu = hook->cpu;remote = this_cpu != hook->cpu;- }
Honestly, this dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu thing doesn't make the code particularly clear and I wouldn't bother adding it, at least to start with.
I would just not do the fast switch for remote updates at all.
Plus, the single-CPU policy case is additionally complicated by the recent addition of sugov_cpu_is_busy(), so that needs to be take into account too.
sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags); sg_cpu->last_update = time; @@ -220,7 +234,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, sugov_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, &util, &max); next_f = get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max); }
- sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
- sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, cpu, remote, next_f);
} static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) @@ -269,8 +283,24 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, { struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct sugov_cpu, update_util); struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
- struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy; unsigned long util, max; unsigned int next_f;
- int cpu, this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
- bool remote;
- if (policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu ||
cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, policy->cpus)) {
Again, is this actually worth it?
Thanks, Rafael