Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:37:41 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] cpufreq: Add strict_target to struct cpufreq_policy |
| |
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:47 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 09-11-20, 17:53, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > > > Add a new field to be set when the CPUFREQ_GOV_FLAG_STRICT_TARGET > > flag is set for the current governor to struct cpufreq_policy, so > > that the drivers needing to check CPUFREQ_GOV_FLAG_STRICT_TARGET do > > not have to access the governor object during every frequency > > transition. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++ > > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 6 ++++++ > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > @@ -2280,6 +2280,8 @@ static int cpufreq_init_governor(struct > > } > > } > > > > + policy->strict_target = !!(policy->governor->flags & CPUFREQ_GOV_FLAG_STRICT_TARGET); > > + > > return 0; > > } > > > > Index: linux-pm/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-pm.orig/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > +++ linux-pm/include/linux/cpufreq.h > > @@ -109,6 +109,12 @@ struct cpufreq_policy { > > bool fast_switch_enabled; > > > > /* > > + * Set if the CPUFREQ_GOV_FLAG_STRICT_TARGET flag is set for the > > + * current governor. > > + */ > > + bool strict_target; > > + > > + /* > > * Preferred average time interval between consecutive invocations of > > * the driver to set the frequency for this policy. To be set by the > > * scaling driver (0, which is the default, means no preference). > > I was kind of hoping to avoid adding a field here when I proposed updating the > gov structure. I do understand the performance related penalty of accessing the > gov structure for fast switch case though and so wonder if we really need this, > then should we avoid changing the gov structure at all ? I mean there is only > one user of that field now, do we really need a flag for it ? We can just do the > string comparison here with powersave and performance to set strict_target. > > Whatever you feel is better though.
The cost of having the flag is zero and it allows things to be documented a bit better IMV.
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Thanks!
| |