lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3 1/2] topology: Allow multiple entities to provide sched_freq_tick() callback
On 17-02-21, 00:24, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > index 1e47dfd465f8..47fca7376c93 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c
> > @@ -240,7 +240,6 @@ static struct scale_freq_data amu_sfd = {
> >
> > static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> > {
> > - bool invariant;
> > int cpu;
> >
> > /* We are already set since the last insmod of cpufreq driver */
> > @@ -257,25 +256,10 @@ static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> >
> > cpumask_or(amu_fie_cpus, amu_fie_cpus, cpus);
> >
> > - invariant = topology_scale_freq_invariant();
> > -
> > - /* We aren't fully invariant yet */
> > - if (!invariant && !cpumask_equal(amu_fie_cpus, cpu_present_mask))
> > - return;
> > -
>
> You still need these checks, otherwise you could end up with only part
> of the CPUs setting a scale factor, when only part of the CPUs support
> AMUs and there is no cpufreq support for FIE.

Another look at it and here goes another reason (hope I don't have
another in-code comment somewhere else to kill this one) :)

We don't need to care for the reason you gave (which is a valid reason
otherwise), as we are talking specifically about amu_fie_setup() here
and it gets called from cpufreq policy-notifier. i.e. we won't support
AMUs without cpufreq being there in the first place and the same goes
for cppc-driver.

Does that sound reasonable ?

--
viresh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-18 11:52    [W:1.457 / U:0.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site