From: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Update cached "current frequency" when limits change
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 19:24:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1499826256-23491-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org> (raw)
Currently, the governor calculates the next frequency, set the current CPU
frequency (policy->cur). It also assumes the current CPU frequency doesn't
change if the next frequency isn't calculated again and hence caches the
"current frequency".
However, this isn't true when CPU min/max frequency limits are changed. So,
there's room for the CPU frequency to get stuck at the wrong level if the
calculated next frequency doesn't change across multiple limits updates.
Fix this by updating the cached "current frequency" when limits changes the
current CPU frequency.
Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
---
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index 076a2e3..fe0b2fb 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
+ raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL) {
next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
} else {
@@ -240,6 +241,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
next_f = sg_policy->next_freq;
}
sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
+ raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
}
static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
@@ -637,10 +639,14 @@ static void sugov_stop(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
static void sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
{
struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
+ unsigned long flags;
if (!policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
cpufreq_policy_apply_limits(policy);
+ raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
+ sg_policy->next_freq = policy->cur;
+ raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sg_policy->update_lock, flags);
mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
}
--
~/caf-sig.txt
next reply other threads:[~2017-07-12 2:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-12 2:24 Saravana Kannan [this message]
2017-07-12 5:24 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Update cached "current frequency" when limits change Viresh Kumar
2017-07-12 17:44 ` Saravana Kannan
2017-07-14 1:52 ` Saravana Kannan
2017-07-14 4:05 ` 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=1499826256-23491-1-git-send-email-skannan@codeaurora.org \
--to=skannan@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).