On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 7:44 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 the new limits as soon as possible.
>
> Trying to fix this by using only one flag, i.e. need_freq_update, can
> lead to a race condition where the flag gets cleared without forcing us
> to change the frequency at least once. And so this patch introduces
> another flag to avoid that race condition.
>
> 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>
> ---
> V2->V3:
> - Updated commit log.
>
> V1->V2:
> - Fixed the race condition using a different flag.
>
> @Doug: I haven't changed the code since you last tested these. Your
> Tested-by tag can be useful while applying the patches. Thanks.
>
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 636ca6f88c8e..2f382b0959e5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct sugov_policy {
> struct task_struct *thread;
> bool work_in_progress;
>
> + bool limits_changed;
> bool need_freq_update;
> };
>
> @@ -89,8 +90,11 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
> !cpufreq_this_cpu_can_update(sg_policy->policy))
> return false;
>
> - if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update))
> + if (unlikely(sg_policy->limits_changed)) {
> + sg_policy->limits_changed = false;
> + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
> return true;
> + }
>
> delta_ns = time - sg_policy->last_freq_update_time;
>
> @@ -437,7 +441,7 @@ static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
> static inline void ignore_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
> {
> if (cpu_bw_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->bw_dl)
> - sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
> + sg_policy->limits_changed = true;
> }
>
> static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> @@ -447,7 +451,7 @@ 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;
This shouldn't be necessary ->
>
> sugov_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
> sg_cpu->last_update = time;
> @@ -457,7 +461,9 @@ 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);
-> if this is rewritten as
busy = !sg_policy->need_freq_update && sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
which is simpler and avoids the extra branch.
>
> util = sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
> max = sg_cpu->max;
> @@ -831,6 +837,7 @@ static int sugov_start(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = 0;
> sg_policy->next_freq = 0;
> sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
> + sg_policy->limits_changed = false;
> sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
> sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = 0;
>
> @@ -879,7 +886,7 @@ static void sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> }
>
> - sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
> + sg_policy->limits_changed = true;
> }
>
> struct cpufreq_governor schedutil_gov = {
> --
> 2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b
>
