From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
To: davej@redhat.com, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk
Subject: [PATCH 003/007] cpufreq_conservative: make for_each_cpu() safe
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 11:55:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060326095544.GD17358@dominikbrodowski.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060326095338.GA17358@dominikbrodowski.de>
From: Alexander Clouter <alex@digriz.org.uk>
All these changes should make cpufreq_conservative safe in regards to the x86
for_each_cpu cpumask.h changes and whatnot.
Whilst making it safe a number of pointless for loops related to the cpu
mask's were removed. I was never comfortable with all those for loops,
especially as the iteration is over the same data again and again for each
CPU you had in a single poll, an O(n^2) outcome to frequency scaling.
The approach I use is to assume by default no CPU's exist and it sets the
requested_freq to zero as a kind of flag, the reasoning is in the source ;)
If the CPU is queried and requested_freq is zero then it initialises the
variable to current_freq and then continues as if nothing happened which
should be the same net effect as before?
Signed-off-by: Alexander Clouter <alex-kernel@digriz.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 91 +++++++++++++++-----------------
1 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
08a28e2e98aa821cf6f15f8a267beb2f33377bb9
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
index 3ca3cf0..7498f25 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
@@ -294,31 +294,40 @@ static struct attribute_group dbs_attr_g
static void dbs_check_cpu(int cpu)
{
unsigned int idle_ticks, up_idle_ticks, down_idle_ticks;
+ unsigned int tmp_idle_ticks, total_idle_ticks;
unsigned int freq_step;
unsigned int freq_down_sampling_rate;
- static int down_skip[NR_CPUS];
- static int requested_freq[NR_CPUS];
- static unsigned short init_flag = 0;
- struct cpu_dbs_info_s *this_dbs_info;
- struct cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info;
-
+ static unsigned short down_skip[NR_CPUS];
+ static unsigned int requested_freq[NR_CPUS];
+ static unsigned int init_flag = NR_CPUS;
+ struct cpu_dbs_info_s *this_dbs_info = &per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info, cpu);
struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
- unsigned int j;
- this_dbs_info = &per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info, cpu);
if (!this_dbs_info->enable)
return;
- policy = this_dbs_info->cur_policy;
-
- if ( init_flag == 0 ) {
- for_each_online_cpu(j) {
- dbs_info = &per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info, j);
- requested_freq[j] = dbs_info->cur_policy->cur;
+ if ( init_flag != 0 ) {
+ for_each_cpu(init_flag) {
+ down_skip[init_flag] = 0;
+ /* I doubt a CPU exists with a freq of 0hz :) */
+ requested_freq[init_flag] = 0;
}
- init_flag = 1;
+ init_flag = 0;
}
+ /*
+ * If its a freshly initialised cpu we setup requested_freq. This
+ * check could be avoided if we did not care about a first time
+ * stunted increase in CPU speed when there is a load. I feel we
+ * should be initialising this to something. The removal of a CPU
+ * is not a problem, after a short time the CPU should settle down
+ * to a 'natural' frequency.
+ */
+ if (requested_freq[cpu] == 0)
+ requested_freq[cpu] = this_dbs_info->cur_policy->cur;
+
+ policy = this_dbs_info->cur_policy;
+
/*
* The default safe range is 20% to 80%
* Every sampling_rate, we check
@@ -335,20 +344,15 @@ static void dbs_check_cpu(int cpu)
/* Check for frequency increase */
idle_ticks = UINT_MAX;
- for_each_cpu_mask(j, policy->cpus) {
- unsigned int tmp_idle_ticks, total_idle_ticks;
- struct cpu_dbs_info_s *j_dbs_info;
-
- j_dbs_info = &per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info, j);
- /* Check for frequency increase */
- total_idle_ticks = get_cpu_idle_time(j);
- tmp_idle_ticks = total_idle_ticks -
- j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up;
- j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up = total_idle_ticks;
- if (tmp_idle_ticks < idle_ticks)
- idle_ticks = tmp_idle_ticks;
- }
+ /* Check for frequency increase */
+ total_idle_ticks = get_cpu_idle_time(cpu);
+ tmp_idle_ticks = total_idle_ticks -
+ this_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up;
+ this_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up = total_idle_ticks;
+
+ if (tmp_idle_ticks < idle_ticks)
+ idle_ticks = tmp_idle_ticks;
/* Scale idle ticks by 100 and compare with up and down ticks */
idle_ticks *= 100;
@@ -357,13 +361,9 @@ static void dbs_check_cpu(int cpu)
if (idle_ticks < up_idle_ticks) {
down_skip[cpu] = 0;
- for_each_cpu_mask(j, policy->cpus) {
- struct cpu_dbs_info_s *j_dbs_info;
+ this_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_down =
+ this_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up;
- j_dbs_info = &per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info, j);
- j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_down =
- j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up;
- }
/* if we are already at full speed then break out early */
if (requested_freq[cpu] == policy->max)
return;
@@ -388,21 +388,14 @@ static void dbs_check_cpu(int cpu)
if (down_skip[cpu] < dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_down_factor)
return;
- idle_ticks = UINT_MAX;
- for_each_cpu_mask(j, policy->cpus) {
- unsigned int tmp_idle_ticks, total_idle_ticks;
- struct cpu_dbs_info_s *j_dbs_info;
-
- j_dbs_info = &per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info, j);
- /* Check for frequency decrease */
- total_idle_ticks = j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up;
- tmp_idle_ticks = total_idle_ticks -
- j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_down;
- j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_down = total_idle_ticks;
+ /* Check for frequency decrease */
+ total_idle_ticks = this_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up;
+ tmp_idle_ticks = total_idle_ticks -
+ this_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_down;
+ this_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_down = total_idle_ticks;
- if (tmp_idle_ticks < idle_ticks)
- idle_ticks = tmp_idle_ticks;
- }
+ if (tmp_idle_ticks < idle_ticks)
+ idle_ticks = tmp_idle_ticks;
/* Scale idle ticks by 100 and compare with up and down ticks */
idle_ticks *= 100;
@@ -491,7 +484,7 @@ static int cpufreq_governor_dbs(struct c
j_dbs_info = &per_cpu(cpu_dbs_info, j);
j_dbs_info->cur_policy = policy;
- j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up = get_cpu_idle_time(j);
+ j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up = get_cpu_idle_time(cpu);
j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_down
= j_dbs_info->prev_cpu_idle_up;
}
--
1.2.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-26 9:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-26 9:53 [git pull] cpufreq governor updates for 2.6.17 Dominik Brodowski
2006-03-26 9:54 ` [PATCH 001/007] cpufreq_conservative: aligning of codebase with ondemand Dominik Brodowski
2006-03-26 9:55 ` [PATCH 002/007] cpufreq_conservative: alter default responsiveness Dominik Brodowski
2006-03-26 9:55 ` Dominik Brodowski [this message]
2006-03-26 9:56 ` [PATCH 004/007] cpufreq_conservative: alternative initialise approach Dominik Brodowski
2006-03-26 9:57 ` [PATCH 005/007] cpufreq_ondemand: Warn if it cannot run due to too long transition latency Dominik Brodowski
2006-03-26 9:57 ` [PATCH 006/007] cpufreq_ondemand: keep ignore_nice_load value when it is reselected Dominik Brodowski
2006-03-26 9:57 ` [PATCH 007/007] cpufreq_ondemand: add range check Dominik Brodowski
2006-03-27 19:53 ` [git pull] cpufreq governor updates for 2.6.17 Dave Jones
2006-03-27 19:58 ` Dave Jones
2006-03-27 21:06 ` Dominik Brodowski
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=20060326095544.GD17358@dominikbrodowski.de \
--to=linux@dominikbrodowski.net \
--cc=cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
/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