From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
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 3/9] cpufreq: ondemand: only queue canceled works from update_sampling_rate()
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:28:31 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150908015831.GY26760@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1806697.T1XSqGqSN5@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 08-09-15, 03:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> There really are two cases, either you pass a CPU or gov_queue_work() has to
> walk policy->cpus.
Right (At least for now, we are doing just that.)
> Doing it the way you did hides that IMO.
Maybe. But I see it otherwise. Adding special meaning to a variable
(like int cpu == -1 being the special case to specify policy->cpus)
hides things morei, as we need to look at how it is decoded finally in
the routine gov_queue_work().
But if we send a mask instead, it is very clear by reading the callers
site, what we are trying to do.
> I'd simply pass an int and use a special value to indicate that policy->cpus
> is to be walked.
Like cpu == -1 thing? Or something else?
> > - if (!all_cpus) {
> > - /*
> > - * Use raw_smp_processor_id() to avoid preemptible warnings.
> > - * We know that this is only called with all_cpus == false from
> > - * works that have been queued with *_work_on() functions and
> > - * those works are canceled during CPU_DOWN_PREPARE so they
> > - * can't possibly run on any other CPU.
> > - */
>
> This was a useful comment and it should be moved along the logic it was supposed
> to explain and not just dropped.
Sigh
> > - __gov_queue_work(raw_smp_processor_id(), dbs_data, delay);
> > - } else {
> > - for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus)
> > - __gov_queue_work(i, dbs_data, delay);
> > - }
> > + for_each_cpu(i, cpus)
> > + __gov_queue_work(i, dbs_data, delay);
> >
> > out_unlock:
> > mutex_unlock(&cpufreq_governor_lock);
> > @@ -232,7 +221,8 @@ static void dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > struct cpufreq_policy *policy = shared->policy;
> > struct dbs_data *dbs_data = policy->governor_data;
> > unsigned int sampling_rate, delay;
> > - bool modify_all = true;
> > + const struct cpumask *cpus;
>
> I don't think this local variable is necessary.
>
> > + bool load_eval;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&shared->timer_mutex);
> >
> > @@ -246,11 +236,11 @@ static void dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work)
> > sampling_rate = od_tuners->sampling_rate;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!need_load_eval(cdbs->shared, sampling_rate))
> > - modify_all = false;
> > + load_eval = need_load_eval(cdbs->shared, sampling_rate);
> > + cpus = load_eval ? policy->cpus : cpumask_of(raw_smp_processor_id());
> >
> > - delay = dbs_data->cdata->gov_dbs_timer(cdbs, dbs_data, modify_all);
> > - gov_queue_work(dbs_data, policy, delay, modify_all);
> > + delay = dbs_data->cdata->gov_dbs_timer(cdbs, dbs_data, load_eval);
> > + gov_queue_work(dbs_data, policy, delay, cpus);
Avoiding that local variable would have made this a little longer, but
I can surely drop it :)
gov_queue_work(dbs_data, policy, delay,
load_eval ? policy->cpus :
cpumask_of(raw_smp_processor_id());
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-08 1:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-27 12:28 [PATCH V2 0/9] CPUFreq: governors: further cleanups Viresh Kumar
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
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 [this message]
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
2015-09-03 4:44 ` [PATCH V2 0/9] CPUFreq: governors: further cleanups Viresh Kumar
2015-09-04 14:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=20150908015831.GY26760@linux \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=preeti.lkml@gmail.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).