On Thursday, December 03, 2015 09:37:53 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> cpufreq governors evaluate load at sampling rate and based on that they
> update frequency for a group of CPUs belonging to the same cpufreq
> policy.
>
> This is required to be done in a single thread for all policy->cpus, but
> because we don't want to wakeup idle CPUs to do just that, we use
> deferrable work for this. If we would have used a single delayed
> deferrable work for the entire policy, there were chances that the CPU
> required to run the handler can be in idle and we might end up not
> changing the frequency for the entire group with load variations.
>
> And so we were forced to keep per-cpu works, and only the one that
> expires first need to do the real work and others are rescheduled for
> next sampling time.
>
> We have been using the more complex solution until now, where we used a
> delayed deferrable work for this, which is a combination of a timer and
> a work.
>
> This could be made lightweight by keeping per-cpu deferred timers with a
> single work item, which is scheduled by the first timer that expires.
>
> This patch does just that and here are important changes:
> - The timer handler will run in irq context and so we need to use a
> spin_lock instead of the timer_mutex. And so a separate timer_lock is
> created. This also makes the use of the mutex and lock quite clear, as
> we know what exactly they are protecting.
> - A new field 'skip_work' is added to track when the timer handlers can
> queue a work. More comments present in code.
>
> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Ashwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaug...@linaro.org>
I've tentatively queued this one up, but I still have a couple of questions.
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 139
> +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 20 ++++--
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 8 +--
> 3 files changed, 98 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
[cut]
> @@ -250,14 +247,44 @@ static void dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> sampling_rate = od_tuners->sampling_rate;
> }
>
> - if (!need_load_eval(cdbs->shared, sampling_rate))
> - modify_all = false;
> + eval_load = need_load_eval(shared, sampling_rate);
>
> - delay = dbs_data->cdata->gov_dbs_timer(policy, modify_all);
> - gov_queue_work(dbs_data, policy, delay, modify_all);
> + /*
> + * Make sure cpufreq_governor_limits() isn't evaluating load in
> + * parallel.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&shared->timer_mutex);
> + delay = dbs_data->cdata->gov_dbs_timer(policy, eval_load);
> + mutex_unlock(&shared->timer_mutex);
> +
> + shared->skip_work--;
Is there any reason for incrementing and decrementing this instead of setting
it to either 0 or 1 (or maybe either 'true' or 'false' for that matter)?
If my reading of the patch is correct, it can only be either 0 or 1 anyway,
right?
> + gov_add_timers(policy, delay);
> +}
> +
> +static void dbs_timer_handler(unsigned long data)
> +{
> + struct cpu_dbs_info *cdbs = (struct cpu_dbs_info *)data;
> + struct cpu_common_dbs_info *shared = cdbs->shared;
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&shared->timer_lock, flags);
> + policy = shared->policy;
Why do we need policy here?
> +
> + /*
> + * Timer handler isn't allowed to queue work at the moment, because:
> + * - Another timer handler has done that
> + * - We are stopping the governor
> + * - Or we are updating the sampling rate of ondemand governor
> + */
> + if (shared->skip_work)
> + goto unlock;
> +
> + shared->skip_work++;
> + queue_work(system_wq, &shared->work);
>
> unlock:
What about writing the above as
if (!shared->work_in_progress) {
shared->work_in_progress = true;
queue_work(system_wq, &shared->work);
}
and then you won't need the unlock label.
> - mutex_unlock(&shared->timer_mutex);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&shared->timer_lock, flags);
> }
>
> static void set_sampling_rate(struct dbs_data *dbs_data,
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
