Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:55:59 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] cpufreq: schedutil: Always call drvier if need_freq_update is set |
| |
Spelling mistake in $subject (driver)
On 23-10-20, 17:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Because sugov_update_next_freq() may skip a frequency update even if > the need_freq_update flag has been set for the policy at hand, policy > limits updates may not take effect as expected. > > For example, if the intel_pstate driver operates in the passive mode > with HWP enabled, it needs to update the HWP min and max limits when > the policy min and max limits change, respectively, but that may not > happen if the target frequency does not change along with the limit > at hand. In particular, if the policy min is changed first, causing > the target frequency to be adjusted to it, and the policy max limit > is changed later to the same value, the HWP max limit will not be > updated to follow it as expected, because the target frequency is > still equal to the policy min limit and it will not change until > that limit is updated. > > To address this issue, modify get_next_freq() to clear > need_freq_update only if the CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS flag is > not set for the cpufreq driver in use (and it should be set for all > potentially affected drivers) and make sugov_update_next_freq() > check need_freq_update and continue when it is set regardless of > whether or not the new target frequency is equal to the old one. > > Fixes: f6ebbcf08f37 ("cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement passive mode with HWP enabled") > Reported-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> > Cc: 5.9+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.9+ > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > > New patch in v2. > > --- > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > @@ -102,11 +102,12 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(str > static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > unsigned int next_freq) > { > - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > return false; > > sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > > return true; > } > @@ -164,7 +165,10 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct > if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update) > return sg_policy->next_freq; > > - sg_policy->need_freq_update = false; > + if (sg_policy->need_freq_update) > + sg_policy->need_freq_update = > + cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS); > +
The behavior here is a bit different from what we did in cpufreq.c. In cpufreq core we are _always_ allowing the call to reach the driver's target() routine, but here we do it only if limits have changed. Wonder if we should have similar behavior here as well ?
Over that the code here can be rewritten a bit like:
if (sg_policy->need_freq_update) sg_policy->need_freq_update = cpufreq_driver_test_flags(CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS); else if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq) return sg_policy->next_freq;
-- viresh
| |