From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
preeti.lkml@gmail.com, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/9] cpufreq: conservative: remove 'enable' field
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2015 02:17:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2910194.KRcaApdNFO@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <91abed4ff8fe68f26fe0bdc840982bb972dba6dc.1437999691.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:58:07 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Conservative governor has its own 'enable' field to check if
> conservative governor is used for a CPU or not
>
> This can be checked by policy->governor with 'cpufreq_gov_conservative'
> and so this field can be dropped.
>
> Because its not guaranteed that dbs_info->cdbs.shared will a valid
> pointer for all CPUs (will be NULL for CPUs that don't use
> ondemand/conservative governors), we can't use it anymore. Lets get
> policy with cpufreq_cpu_get() instead.
But previously, if the enable bit was set, we actually new that the
pointer was valid, right?
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 12 +-----------
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 1 -
> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> index 84a1506950a7..18bfbc313e48 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,19 @@
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cs_cpu_dbs_info_s, cs_cpu_dbs_info);
>
> +static int cs_cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int event);
> +
> +#ifndef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE
> +static
> +#endif
> +struct cpufreq_governor cpufreq_gov_conservative = {
> + .name = "conservative",
> + .governor = cs_cpufreq_governor_dbs,
> + .max_transition_latency = TRANSITION_LATENCY_LIMIT,
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> +};
> +
> static inline unsigned int get_freq_target(struct cs_dbs_tuners *cs_tuners,
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> @@ -119,12 +132,14 @@ static int dbs_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> struct cs_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info =
> &per_cpu(cs_cpu_dbs_info, freq->cpu);
> - struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(freq->cpu);
>
> - if (!dbs_info->enable)
> + if (!policy)
> return 0;
>
> - policy = dbs_info->cdbs.shared->policy;
So here we could get to the policy directly. After the change we have to:
- acquire cpufreq_rwsem
- acquire cpufreq_driver_lock
- go the kobject_get on policy->kobj
and then finally drop the reference to the kobject when we're done.
So may I ask where exactly is the improvement?
> + /* policy isn't governed by conservative governor */
> + if (policy->governor != &cpufreq_gov_conservative)
> + goto policy_put;
>
> /*
> * we only care if our internally tracked freq moves outside the 'valid'
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-07 23:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1437999691.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 1/9] cpufreq: Use __func__ to print function's name Viresh Kumar
2015-09-07 23:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 2/9] cpufreq: conservative: remove 'enable' field Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 0:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2015-09-08 1:33 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:40 ` [PATCH V3 " Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 3/9] cpufreq: ondemand: only queue canceled works from update_sampling_rate() Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-08 1:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 1:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-09 2:30 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 20:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work() Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-08 2:00 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 1:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 5/9] cpufreq: ondemand: Drop unnecessary locks from update_sampling_rate() Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-08 2:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 2:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 7/9] cpufreq: ondemand: update sampling rate immidiately Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 8/9] cpufreq: governor: Quit work-handlers early if governor is stopped Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 9/9] cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock Viresh Kumar
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=2910194.KRcaApdNFO@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=preeti.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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
Powered by JetHome