lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Provide resolve_freq() to fix regression
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> When the schedutil governor calls cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() for the
> intel_pstate (in passive mode) driver, it simply returns the requested
> frequency as there is no ->resolve_freq() callback provided.
>
> The result is that get_next_freq() doesn't get a chance to know the
> frequency which will be set eventually and we can hit a potential
> regression as explained in the following paragraph.
>
> For example, consider the possible range of frequencies as 900 MHz, 1
> GHz, 1.1 GHz, and 1.2 GHz. If the current frequency is 1.1 GHz and the
> next frequency (based on current utilization) is 1 GHz, then the
> schedutil governor will try to set the average of these as the next
> frequency (i.e. 1.05 GHz).
>
> Because we always try to find the lowest frequency greater than equal to
> the target frequency, the intel_pstate driver will end up setting the
> frequency as 1.1 GHz.
>
> Though the sg_policy->next_freq field gets updated with the average
> frequency only. And so we will finally select the min frequency when the
> next_freq is 1 more than the min frequency as the average then will be
> equal to the min frequency. But that will also take lots of iterations
> of the schedutil update callbacks.
>
> Fix that by providing a resolve_freq() callback.
>
> Tested on desktop with Intel Skylake processors.
>
> Fixes: 39b64aa1c007 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Reduce frequencies slower")
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> index 029a93bfb558..e177352180c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -2213,6 +2213,19 @@ static int intel_cpufreq_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +unsigned int intel_cpufreq_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int target_freq)

Should be defined as static?

Thanks,
Joel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-12 01:55    [W:2.458 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site