On 2019.07.21 23:52 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> To avoid reducing the frequency of a CPU prematurely, we skip reducing
> the frequency if the CPU had been busy recently.
>
> This should not be done when the limits of the policy are changed, for
> example due to thermal throttling. We should always get the frequency
> within limits as soon as possible.
>
> Fixes: ecd288429126 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX")
> Cc: v4.18+ <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.18+
> Reported-by: Doug Smythies <doug.smythies@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> @Doug: Please try this patch, it must fix the issue you reported.
It fixes the driver = acpi-cpufreq ; governor = schedutil test case
It does not fix the driver = intel_cpufreq ; governor = schedutil test case
I have checked my results twice, but will check again in the day or two.
... Doug
>
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 636ca6f88c8e..b53c4f02b0f1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
> unsigned long util, max;
> unsigned int next_f;
> - bool busy;
> + bool busy = false;
>
> sugov_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
> sg_cpu->last_update = time;
> @@ -457,7 +457,9 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> return;
>
> - busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
> + /* Limits may have changed, don't skip frequency update */
> + if (!sg_policy->need_freq_update)
> + busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
>
> util = sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
> max = sg_cpu->max;
> --
> 2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b
