Hi Viresh,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:32:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
>
> I know Rafael has asked you to send only the incremental patch, but i
> am interested in reviewing whole series again, as i haven't reviewed
> earlier stuff :)
Sure, take your chance.
[internal note]
> I believe you are required to send patches to patches@xxxxxxxxxx too :)
I already have patches@xxxxxxxxxx in BCC, all my patches are there.
[/internal note]
> On 30 January 2013 18:30, Fabio Baltieri <fabio.baltieri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Rickard Andersson <rickard.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This patch fixes a bug that occurred when we had load on a secondary CPU
> > and the primary CPU was sleeping. Only one sampling timer was spawned
> > and it was spawned as a deferred timer on the primary CPU, so when a
> > secondary CPU had a change in load this was not detected by the cpufreq
> > governor (both ondemand and conservative).
> >
> > This patch make sure that deferred timers are run on all CPUs in the
> > case of software controlled CPUs that run on the same frequency.
>
> Its really a good point. I wondered earlier why does interactive governor
> has per-cpu timer. BTW, you can check how interactive governor is handling
> this requirement. That might improve these drivers too.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
> > +bool dbs_sw_coordinated_cpus(struct cpu_dbs_common_info *cdbs)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cdbs->cur_policy;
> > +
> > + return cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dbs_sw_coordinated_cpus);
>
> I believe this routine should be rather present in cpufreq core code,
> as their might
> be other users of it. Its really not related to dbs or governors.
>
> My ideas about the name of routine then:
> - policy_is_shared()
> - or something better you have :)
So you are suggesting to rethink this function to be related to policy
rather than dbs... this may as well become an inline in cpufreq.h, as:
static inline bool policy_is_shared(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
return cpumask_weight(policy->cpus) > 1;
}
I'm not sure about the name through, I like mentioning sw coordination in it
because that's the comment in the declaration:
cpumask_var_t cpus; /* CPUs requiring sw coordination */
cpumask_var_t related_cpus; /* CPUs with any coordination */
And those two are already confusing as a starting point.
Anyway, this sounds fine to me. If you think this is useful I can send
a patch, or feel free to include it in your patches if you plan to do
further cleanup work on this code.
/me tries to also keep that ->cpu field in mind.
> > @@ -217,6 +227,10 @@ int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct dbs_data *dbs_data,
> > if (ignore_nice)
> > j_cdbs->prev_cpu_nice =
> > kcpustat_cpu(j).cpustat[CPUTIME_NICE];
> > +
> > + mutex_init(&j_cdbs->timer_mutex);
> > + INIT_DEFERRABLE_WORK(&j_cdbs->work,
> > + dbs_data->gov_dbs_timer);
>
> That doesn't look the right place for doing it. With this change we
> will initialize
> mutex and work for all cpus whenever cpufreq_governor_dbs(GOV_START) is
> called. We really want to do it just before second_time: label, which will do
> it only when this is called for the very first time or cpu.
>
> That's what i thought initially :)
>
> Then i looked at my own work and realized something else :).. Now, because
> we stop/start governors on every cpu movement, this routine is called only once.
>
> What you can do:
> - Create a single for_each_cpu() in GOV_START path
> - Get rid of dbs_data->enable routine as we don't need to store the
> number of calls
> for GOV_START.
>
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -275,15 +289,16 @@ second_time:
> > }
> > mutex_unlock(&dbs_data->mutex);
> >
> > - mutex_init(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex);
> > - dbs_timer_init(dbs_data, cpu_cdbs, *sampling_rate);
> > + for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus)
> > + dbs_timer_init(dbs_data, j, *sampling_rate);
>
> Keep this too in the same for_each_cpu() loop and hence get to older
> param types of dbs_timer_init(), i.e. don't pass cpu as we already have
> j_cdbs in our loop.
Ok, I can try to implement this if you help testing the patch on your bL
system. :-)
Fabio
> > break;
> >
> > case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
> > if (dbs_data->governor == GOV_CONSERVATIVE)
> > cs_dbs_info->enable = 0;
> >
> > - dbs_timer_exit(cpu_cdbs);
> > + for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus)
> > + dbs_timer_exit(dbs_data, j);
> >
> > mutex_lock(&dbs_data->mutex);
> > mutex_destroy(&cpu_cdbs->timer_mutex);
--
Fabio Baltieri
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
