On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:00:32PM GMT, Ram Prakash Gupta wrote:
> Currently ufs clk scaling is getting suspended only when the
> clks are scaled down, but next when high load is generated its
> adding a huge amount of latency in scaling up the clk and complete
> the request post that.
>
> Now if the scaling is suspended in its existing state, and when high
> load is generated it is helping improve the random performance KPI by
> 28%. So suspending the scaling when there is no request. And the clk
> would be put in low scaled state when the actual request load is low.
>
> Making this change as optional for other vendor by having the check
> enabled using vops as for some vendor suspending without bringing the
> clk in low scaled state might have impact on power consumption on the
> SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ram Prakash Gupta <quic_rampraka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 3 ++-
> include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index 1b65e6ae4137..0dc9928ae18d 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -1560,7 +1560,8 @@ static int ufshcd_devfreq_target(struct device *dev,
> ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(ktime_get(), start)), ret);
>
> out:
> - if (sched_clk_scaling_suspend_work && !scale_up)
> + if (sched_clk_scaling_suspend_work && (!scale_up ||
> + hba->clk_scaling.suspend_on_no_request))
Really a nit: moving !scale_up to the next line would make easier to
read.
> queue_work(hba->clk_scaling.workq,
> &hba->clk_scaling.suspend_work);
>
> diff --git a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> index bad88bd91995..c14607f2890b 100644
> --- a/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> +++ b/include/ufs/ufshcd.h
> @@ -457,6 +457,7 @@ struct ufs_clk_scaling {
> bool is_initialized;
> bool is_busy_started;
> bool is_suspended;
> + bool suspend_on_no_request;
> };
>
> #define UFS_EVENT_HIST_LENGTH 8
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
