From: Yue Hu <huy...@yulong.com> Note that sugov_update_next_freq() may return false, that means the caller sugov_fast_switch() will do nothing except fast switch check.
Similarly, sugov_deferred_update() also has unnecessary operations of raw_spin_{lock,unlock} in sugov_update_single_freq() for that case. So, let's call sugov_update_next_freq() before the fast switch check to avoid unnecessary behaviors above. Accordingly, update interface definition to sugov_deferred_update() and remove sugov_fast_switch() since we will call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead. Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huy...@yulong.com> --- v2: remove sugov_fast_switch() and call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead, also update minor log message. kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 ++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c index 41e498b..65fe2c8 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c @@ -114,19 +114,8 @@ static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, return true; } -static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, - unsigned int next_freq) +static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) { - if (sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) - cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_freq); -} - -static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, - unsigned int next_freq) -{ - if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq)) - return; - if (!sg_policy->work_in_progress) { sg_policy->work_in_progress = true; irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work); @@ -368,16 +357,19 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = cached_freq; } + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) + return; + /* * This code runs under rq->lock for the target CPU, so it won't run * concurrently on two different CPUs for the same target and it is not * necessary to acquire the lock in the fast switch case. */ if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) { - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); + cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_f); } else { raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock); - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); } } @@ -456,12 +448,15 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time) if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) { next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_cpu, time); + if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_f)) + goto unlock; + if (sg_policy->policy->fast_switch_enabled) - sugov_fast_switch(sg_policy, time, next_f); + cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(sg_policy->policy, next_f); else - sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy, time, next_f); + sugov_deferred_update(sg_policy); } - +unlock: raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock); } -- 1.9.1