On 09-05-18, 11:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 09-05-18, 10:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> I'm kind of concerned about updating the limits via sysfs in which
> >> case the cached next frequency may be out of range, so it's better to
> >> invalidate it right away then.
> >
> > That should not be a problem as __cpufreq_driver_target() will anyway
> > clamp the target frequency to be within limits, whatever the cached
> > value of next_freq is.
>
> The fast switch case doesn't use it, though.
cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() does the same clamping :)
> > And we aren't invalidating the cached next freq immediately currently
> > as well, as we are waiting until the next time the util update handler
> > is called to set sg_policy->next_freq to UINT_MAX.
> >
> >> > What else do you have in mind to solve this problem ?
> >>
> >> Something like the below?
> >>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 3 ++-
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> @@ -305,7 +305,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct u
> >> * Do not reduce the frequency if the CPU has not been idle
> >> * recently, as the reduction is likely to be premature then.
> >> */
> >> - if (busy && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq) {
> >> + if (busy && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq &&
> >> + sg_policy->next_freq != UINT_MAX) {
> >> next_f = sg_policy->next_freq;
> >>
> >> /* Reset cached freq as next_freq has changed */
> >
> > This will fix the problem we have identified currently, but adding a
> > special meaning to next_freq == UINT_MAX invites more hidden corner
> > cases like the one we just found. IMHO, using next_freq only for the
> > *real* frequency values makes its usage more transparent and readable.
> > And we already have the need_freq_update flag which we can use for
> > this special purpose, as is done in my patch.
>
> So I prefer to do the above as a -stable fix and make the UNIT_MAX
> change on top of that.
Okay, that's fine with me. Will send the next version now :)
Just to make sure, you are fine with the "Fixes" tag now (since you
objected to that earlier) ?
--
viresh
