From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: rjw@rjwysocki.net
Cc: preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nicolas.pitre@linaro.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org,
patches@linaro.org, lenb@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH V3 6/6] cpuidle: menu: Move the update function before its declaration
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:31:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1415370687-18688-7-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1415370687-18688-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
In order to prevent a pointless forward declaration, just move the function
at the beginning of the file.
This patch does not change the behavior of the governor, it is just code
reordering.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
---
| 149 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-)
--git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
index 163e63b..b8017ad 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
@@ -184,7 +184,6 @@ static inline int performance_multiplier(unsigned long nr_iowaiters, unsigned lo
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct menu_device, menu_devices);
-static void menu_update(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev);
/* This implements DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST but avoids 64 bit division */
static u64 div_round64(u64 dividend, u32 divisor)
@@ -192,6 +191,80 @@ static u64 div_round64(u64 dividend, u32 divisor)
return div_u64(dividend + (divisor / 2), divisor);
}
+/**
+ * menu_update - attempts to guess what happened after entry
+ * @drv: cpuidle driver containing state data
+ * @dev: the CPU
+ */
+static void menu_update(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev)
+{
+ struct menu_device *data = this_cpu_ptr(&menu_devices);
+ int last_idx = data->last_state_idx;
+ struct cpuidle_state *target = &drv->states[last_idx];
+ unsigned int measured_us;
+ unsigned int new_factor;
+
+ /*
+ * Try to figure out how much time passed between entry to low
+ * power state and occurrence of the wakeup event.
+ *
+ * If the entered idle state didn't support residency measurements,
+ * we are basically lost in the dark how much time passed.
+ * As a compromise, assume we slept for the whole expected time.
+ *
+ * Any measured amount of time will include the exit latency.
+ * Since we are interested in when the wakeup begun, not when it
+ * was completed, we must subtract the exit latency. However, if
+ * the measured amount of time is less than the exit latency,
+ * assume the state was never reached and the exit latency is 0.
+ */
+ if (unlikely(!(target->flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID))) {
+ /* Use timer value as is */
+ measured_us = data->next_timer_us;
+
+ } else {
+ /* Use measured value */
+ measured_us = cpuidle_get_last_residency(dev);
+
+ /* Deduct exit latency */
+ if (measured_us > target->exit_latency)
+ measured_us -= target->exit_latency;
+
+ /* Make sure our coefficients do not exceed unity */
+ if (measured_us > data->next_timer_us)
+ measured_us = data->next_timer_us;
+ }
+
+ /* Update our correction ratio */
+ new_factor = data->correction_factor[data->bucket];
+ new_factor -= new_factor / DECAY;
+
+ if (data->next_timer_us > 0 && measured_us < MAX_INTERESTING)
+ new_factor += RESOLUTION * measured_us / data->next_timer_us;
+ else
+ /*
+ * we were idle so long that we count it as a perfect
+ * prediction
+ */
+ new_factor += RESOLUTION;
+
+ /*
+ * We don't want 0 as factor; we always want at least
+ * a tiny bit of estimated time. Fortunately, due to rounding,
+ * new_factor will stay nonzero regardless of measured_us values
+ * and the compiler can eliminate this test as long as DECAY > 1.
+ */
+ if (DECAY == 1 && unlikely(new_factor == 0))
+ new_factor = 1;
+
+ data->correction_factor[data->bucket] = new_factor;
+
+ /* update the repeating-pattern data */
+ data->intervals[data->interval_ptr++] = measured_us;
+ if (data->interval_ptr >= INTERVALS)
+ data->interval_ptr = 0;
+}
+
/*
* Try detecting repeating patterns by keeping track of the last 8
* intervals, and checking if the standard deviation of that set
@@ -371,80 +444,6 @@ static void menu_reflect(struct cpuidle_device *dev, int index)
}
/**
- * menu_update - attempts to guess what happened after entry
- * @drv: cpuidle driver containing state data
- * @dev: the CPU
- */
-static void menu_update(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev)
-{
- struct menu_device *data = this_cpu_ptr(&menu_devices);
- int last_idx = data->last_state_idx;
- struct cpuidle_state *target = &drv->states[last_idx];
- unsigned int measured_us;
- unsigned int new_factor;
-
- /*
- * Try to figure out how much time passed between entry to low
- * power state and occurrence of the wakeup event.
- *
- * If the entered idle state didn't support residency measurements,
- * we are basically lost in the dark how much time passed.
- * As a compromise, assume we slept for the whole expected time.
- *
- * Any measured amount of time will include the exit latency.
- * Since we are interested in when the wakeup begun, not when it
- * was completed, we must subtract the exit latency. However, if
- * the measured amount of time is less than the exit latency,
- * assume the state was never reached and the exit latency is 0.
- */
- if (unlikely(!(target->flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID))) {
- /* Use timer value as is */
- measured_us = data->next_timer_us;
-
- } else {
- /* Use measured value */
- measured_us = cpuidle_get_last_residency(dev);
-
- /* Deduct exit latency */
- if (measured_us > target->exit_latency)
- measured_us -= target->exit_latency;
-
- /* Make sure our coefficients do not exceed unity */
- if (measured_us > data->next_timer_us)
- measured_us = data->next_timer_us;
- }
-
- /* Update our correction ratio */
- new_factor = data->correction_factor[data->bucket];
- new_factor -= new_factor / DECAY;
-
- if (data->next_timer_us > 0 && measured_us < MAX_INTERESTING)
- new_factor += RESOLUTION * measured_us / data->next_timer_us;
- else
- /*
- * we were idle so long that we count it as a perfect
- * prediction
- */
- new_factor += RESOLUTION;
-
- /*
- * We don't want 0 as factor; we always want at least
- * a tiny bit of estimated time. Fortunately, due to rounding,
- * new_factor will stay nonzero regardless of measured_us values
- * and the compiler can eliminate this test as long as DECAY > 1.
- */
- if (DECAY == 1 && unlikely(new_factor == 0))
- new_factor = 1;
-
- data->correction_factor[data->bucket] = new_factor;
-
- /* update the repeating-pattern data */
- data->intervals[data->interval_ptr++] = measured_us;
- if (data->interval_ptr >= INTERVALS)
- data->interval_ptr = 0;
-}
-
-/**
* menu_enable_device - scans a CPU's states and does setup
* @drv: cpuidle driver
* @dev: the CPU
--
1.9.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-07 14:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-07 14:31 [PATCH V3 0/6] sched: idle: cpuidle: cleanups and fixes Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-07 14:31 ` [PATCH V3 1/6] sched: idle: Add a weak arch_cpu_idle_poll function Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-08 10:39 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-10 12:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-10 14:20 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-10 15:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-11 11:00 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-07 14:31 ` [PATCH V3 2/6] sched: idle: cpuidle: Check the latency req before idle Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-08 10:40 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-10 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-10 15:12 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-10 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-10 15:58 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-10 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-10 17:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-10 19:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-10 22:21 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-11 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-12 13:53 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-12 15:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-12 17:52 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-07 14:31 ` [PATCH V3 3/6] sched: idle: Get the next timer event and pass it the cpuidle framework Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-08 10:44 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-10 12:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-11-10 15:15 ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-07 14:31 ` [PATCH V3 4/6] cpuidle: idle: menu: Don't reflect when a state selection failed Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-08 10:41 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-11-07 14:31 ` [PATCH V3 5/6] cpuidle: menu: Fix the get_typical_interval Daniel Lezcano
2014-11-07 14:31 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2014-11-07 14:34 ` [PATCH V3 0/6] sched: idle: cpuidle: cleanups and fixes Daniel Lezcano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1415370687-18688-7-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.pitre@linaro.org \
--cc=patches@linaro.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®