[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/7] cpufreq: Call transition notifier only once for each policy
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:16 AM Viresh Kumar <> wrote:
> On 14-03-19, 10:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:43 AM Viresh Kumar <> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently we call the cpufreq transition notifiers once for each CPU of
> > > the policy->cpus cpumask, which isn't that efficient.
> >
> > Why isn't it efficient?
> >
> > Transitions are per-policy anyway, so if something needs to be done
> > for each CPU in the policy, it doesn't matter too much which part of
> > the code carries out the iteration.
> Even if per-cpu iteration has to be done at some place, we are
> avoiding function calls here and the code/locking in the notifier
> layer as well. Will get more such info into changelog.
> > I guess some notifiers need to know what other CPUs there are in the
> > policy? If so, then why?
> You mean about the offline CPUs? I mentioned the rationale in 1/7. It
> is to avoid bugs where we may end up using a stale value if the CPUs
> are offlined/onlined regularly.

I'm not really convinced about this. CPU online really should take
care of updating everything anyway.

> > > This patchset tries to simplify that by adding another field in struct cpufreq_freqs,
> > > cpus, so the callback has all the information available with a single
> > > call for each policy.
> >
> > Well, you can argue that the core is simplified by it somewhat, but
> > the notifiers aren't. They actually get more complex, conceptually
> > too, because they now need to worry about offline vs online CPUs etc.
> 24 different parts of the kernel register for transition notifiers and
> only 5 required update here, the other 19 don't need to do per-cpu
> stuff and they also get benefited by this work. Those routines will
> get called only once now, instead of once per every CPU of the policy.

This is a much better rationale for the change than the one given
originally IMO. :-)

> > Also I wonder why you decided to pass a cpumask in freqs instead of
> > just passing a policy pointer. If you change things from per-CPU to
> > per-policy, passing the whole policy seems more natural.
> I did that because they don't need to use the other fields of the
> policy today and that doesn't look likely in near future as well.

But some of them need to combine the new cpumask with
cpu_online_mask() to get what would be policy->cpus effectively. That
would be avoidable if you passed the policy pointer to them.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-14 11:56    [W:0.097 / U:0.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site