Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Find transition latency dynamically

Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29T04:28:46Z

On 02-06-17, 16:59, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The transition_latency_ns represents the maximum time it can take for
> the hardware to switch from/to any frequency for a CPU.
>
> The transition_latency_ns is used currently for two purposes:
>
> o To check if the hardware latency is over the maximum allowed for a
> governor (only for ondemand and conservative (why not schedutil?)) and
> to decide if the governor can be used or not.
>
> o To calculate the sampling_rate or rate_limit for the governors by
> multiplying transition_latency_ns with a constant.
>
> The platform drivers can also set this value to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL if they
> don't know this number and in that case we disallow use of ondemand and
> conservative governors as the latency would be higher than the maximum
> allowed for the governors.
>
> In many cases this number is forged by the driver authors to get the
> default sampling rate to a desired value. Anyway, the actual latency
> values can differ from what is received from the hardware designers.
>
> Over that, what is provided by the drivers is most likely the time it
> takes to change frequency of the hardware, which doesn't account the
> software overhead involved.
>
> In order to have guarantees about this number, this patch tries to
> calculate the latency dynamically at cpufreq driver registration time by
> first switching to min frequency, then to the max and finally back to
> the initial frequency. And the maximum of all three is used as the
> target_latency. Specifically the time it takes to go from min to max
> frequency (when the software runs the slowest) should be good enough,
> and even if there is a delta involved then it shouldn't be a lot.
>
> For now this patch limits this feature only for platforms which have set
> the transition latency to CPUFREQ_ETERNAL. Maybe we can convert everyone
> to use it in future, but lets see.
>
> This is tested over ARM64 Hikey platform which currently sets
> "clock-latency" as 500 us from DT, while with this patch the actualy
> value increased to 800 us.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)

Hi Rafael,

Any inputs on this one ?

--
viresh