Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] sched/cpufreq: Attach perf domain to sugov policy | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Thu, 17 Oct 2019 10:57:16 +0200 |
| |
On 11/10/2019 15:44, Douglas RAILLARD wrote:
[...]
> @@ -66,6 +70,38 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sugov_cpu, sugov_cpu); > > /************************ Governor internals ***********************/ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL > +static void sugov_policy_attach_pd(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) > +{ > + struct em_perf_domain *pd; > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
Shouldn't always order local variable declarations from longest to shortest line?
> + > + sg_policy->pd = NULL; > + pd = em_cpu_get(policy->cpu); > + if (!pd) > + return; > + > + if (cpumask_equal(policy->related_cpus, to_cpumask(pd->cpus))) > + sg_policy->pd = pd; > + else > + pr_warn("%s: Not all CPUs in schedutil policy %u share the same perf domain, no perf domain for that policy will be registered\n", > + __func__, policy->cpu);
Maybe {} because of 2 lines?
> +} > + > +static struct em_perf_domain *sugov_policy_get_pd( > + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
Maybe this way? This format is already used in this file.
static struct em_perf_domain * sugov_policy_get_pd(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
> +{ > + return sg_policy->pd; > +} > +#else /* CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL */ > +static void sugov_policy_attach_pd(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) {} > +static struct em_perf_domain *sugov_policy_get_pd( > + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) > +{ > + return NULL; > +} > +#endif /* CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL */ > + > static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time) > { > s64 delta_ns; > @@ -859,6 +895,9 @@ static int sugov_start(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > sugov_update_shared : > sugov_update_single); > } > + > + sugov_policy_attach_pd(sg_policy); > + > return 0; > }
A sugov_policy_detach_pd() called from sugov_stop() (doing for instance the g_policy->pd = NULL) is not needed?
| |