Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1220434 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-09-08 03:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus  together Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-09-08 04:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus  together Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-09-08 04:20 +0200

#1220434 — Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together

On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:58:11 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently update_sampling_rate() runs over each online CPU and
> cancels/queues work on it. Its very inefficient for the case where a
> single policy manages multiple CPUs, as they can be processed together.
> 
> Also drop the unnecessary cancel_delayed_work_sync() as we are doing a
> mod_delayed_work_on() in gov_queue_work(), which will take care of
> pending works for us.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> index f1551fc7b4fd..a6f579e40ce2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> @@ -247,40 +247,45 @@ static void update_sampling_rate(struct dbs_data *dbs_data,
>  		unsigned int new_rate)
>  {
>  	struct od_dbs_tuners *od_tuners = dbs_data->tuners;
> +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> +	struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info;
> +	unsigned long next_sampling, appointed_at;
> +	struct cpumask cpumask;
>  	int cpu;
>  
> +	cpumask_copy(&cpumask, cpu_online_mask);
> +
>  	od_tuners->sampling_rate = new_rate = max(new_rate,
>  			dbs_data->min_sampling_rate);
>  
> -	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> -		struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> -		struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info;
> -		unsigned long next_sampling, appointed_at;
> -
> +	for_each_cpu(cpu, &cpumask) {
>  		policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
>  		if (!policy)
>  			continue;
> +
> +		/* clear all CPUs of this policy */
> +		cpumask_andnot(&cpumask, &cpumask, policy->cpus);

Well, this is not exactly straightforward, but should work.

> +
>  		if (policy->governor != &cpufreq_gov_ondemand) {
>  			cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>  			continue;
>  		}
> +
>  		dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, cpu);
>  		cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
>  
> -		if (!delayed_work_pending(&dbs_info->cdbs.dwork))
> +		/* Make sure the work is not canceled on policy->cpus */

I'm not sure what scenario can lead to that.  Care to explain?

> +		if (!dbs_info->cdbs.shared->policy)
>  			continue;
>  
>  		next_sampling = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate);
>  		appointed_at = dbs_info->cdbs.dwork.timer.expires;

For that to work we always need to do stuff for policy->cpus in sync.
Do we?

> -		if (time_before(next_sampling, appointed_at)) {
> -			cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dbs_info->cdbs.dwork);
> -
> -			gov_queue_work(dbs_data, policy,
> -				       usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate),
> -				       cpumask_of(cpu));
> +		if (!time_before(next_sampling, appointed_at))
> +			continue;
>  
> -		}
> +		gov_queue_work(dbs_data, policy, usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate),
> +			       policy->cpus);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> 

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220455 — Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together

On 08-09-15, 07:41, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > >  		next_sampling = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate);
> > >  		appointed_at = dbs_info->cdbs.dwork.timer.expires;
> > 
> > For that to work we always need to do stuff for policy->cpus in sync.
> > Do we?
> 
> Hmm, we are not in 100% sync for sure. Will check that again.

On the other hand, if we decide to apply 7/9 as well, then this is
anyway going to get removed :)

-- 
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1220457 — Re: [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together

On 08-09-15, 03:33, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +		/* Make sure the work is not canceled on policy->cpus */
> 
> I'm not sure what scenario can lead to that.  Care to explain?

CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP event called for the policy and so all its works
are in canceled state.

> > +		if (!dbs_info->cdbs.shared->policy)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> >  		next_sampling = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate);
> >  		appointed_at = dbs_info->cdbs.dwork.timer.expires;
> 
> For that to work we always need to do stuff for policy->cpus in sync.
> Do we?

Hmm, we are not in 100% sync for sure. Will check that again.

-- 
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web