On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 8:17 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 31-07-19, 17:20, Doug Smythies wrote:
> > Hi Viresh,
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > The old way, using UINT_MAX had two purposes: first,
> > as a "need to do a frequency update" flag; but also second, to
> > force any subsequent old/new frequency comparison to NOT be "the same,
> > so why bother actually updating" (see: sugov_update_next_freq). All
> > patches so far have been dealing with the flag, but only partially
> > the comparisons. In a busy system, and when schedutil.c doesn't actually
> > know the currently set system limits, the new frequency is dominated by
> > values the same as the old frequency. So, when sugov_fast_switch calls
> > sugov_update_next_freq, false is usually returned.
>
> And finally we know "Why" :)
>
> Good work Doug. Thanks for taking it to the end.
>
> > However, if we move the resetting of the flag and add another condition
> > to the "no need to actually update" decision, then perhaps this patch
> > version 1 will be O.K. It seems to be. (see way later in this e-mail).
>
> > With all this new knowledge, how about going back to
> > version 1 of this patch, and then adding this:
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > index 808d32b..f9156db 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -100,7 +100,12 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
> > static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > unsigned int next_freq)
> > {
> > - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq)
> > + /*
> > + * Always force an update if the flag is set, regardless.
> > + * In some implementations (intel_cpufreq) the frequency is clamped
> > + * further downstream, and might not actually be different here.
> > + */
> > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update)
> > return false;
>
> This is not correct because this is an optimization we have in place
> to make things more efficient. And it was working by luck earlier and
> my patch broke it for good :)
OK, so since we know why it was wrong now, why don't we just revert
it? Plus maybe add some comment explaining the rationale in there?
