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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1673999

Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: use common aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu() to calculate KHz using APERF/MPERF

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Len Brown wrote:
>> +#include <linux/jiffies.h>
>> +#include <linux/math64.h>
>> +#include <linux/percpu.h>
>> +#include <linux/smp.h>
>> +
>> +struct aperfmperf_sample {
>> +     unsigned int khz;
>> +     unsigned long jiffies;
>> +     u64 aperf;
>> +     u64 mperf;
>
> Nit. Please write these in tabular fashion:
>         unsigned        int khz;
>         unsigned long   jiffies;
>         u64             aperf;
>         u64             mperf;

sure, no problem -- I agreed that looks better.

But it seems there is some inconsistency about this style nit --
even in this directory.  If there is consensus going forward,
would it make sense for coding-style.rst and checkpatch.pl
to squawk about this, so you don't have to?


>> +};
>> +
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct aperfmperf_sample, samples);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * aperfmperf_snapshot_khz()
>> + * On the current CPU, snapshot APERF, MPERF, and jiffies
>> + * unless we already did it within 10ms
>> + * calculate kHz, save snapshot
>> + */
>> +static void aperfmperf_snapshot_khz(void *dummy)
>> +{
>> +     u64 aperf, aperf_delta;
>> +     u64 mperf, mperf_delta;
>> +     struct aperfmperf_sample *s = &get_cpu_var(samples);
>
> This is invoked via a smp function call, so you want
>
>      this_cpu_ptr(samples)
>
> here.

done. thanks!

>> +     /* Don't bother re-computing within 10 ms */
>> +     if (time_before(jiffies, s->jiffies + HZ/100))
>> +             goto out;
>
> That way you can spare the gotos and simply return

happy to remove the gotos, thanks!

>> index a5ce0bbe..cfc6220 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
>> @@ -883,6 +883,19 @@ static inline bool policy_has_boost_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>  }
>>  #endif
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
>> +extern unsigned int aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu);
>> +static inline unsigned int arch_freq_get_on_cpu(int cpu)

> ... having cpu as int and unsigned int is not really consistent.

True.  the SMP code uses int cpu, while cpufreq_policy.cpu is an unsigned int.
I'll use "int cpu".

> Please don't add arch specific crap in general headers.
>
> The simple way to avoid that is to have a weak function and have an arch
> override for it. If that does not work because the cpufreq stuff must be
> built as a module, then you still can avoid CONFIG_X86 and have something
> like CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_FOO.

Thanks -- this is not modular code, and so yes, __weak works -- hadn't
had occasion to use it before...
Attached is the incremental diff responding to your comments, in case
that is convenient.
I'll re-send this series with this patch updated in a sec.

thanks,
Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: use common aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu() to calculate  KHz using APERF/MPERF Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2017-06-20 12:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 2/4] x86: use common aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu() to calculate  KHz using APERF/MPERF Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> - 2017-06-24 07:10 +0200

csiph-web