lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH V3 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update when limits change
Date
To avoid reducing the frequency of a CPU prematurely, we skip reducing
the frequency if the CPU had been busy recently.

This should not be done when the limits of the policy are changed, for
example due to thermal throttling. We should always get the frequency
within the new limits as soon as possible.

Trying to fix this by using only one flag, i.e. need_freq_update, can
lead to a race condition where the flag gets cleared without forcing us
to change the frequency at least once. And so this patch introduces
another flag to avoid that race condition.

Fixes: ecd288429126 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX")
Cc: v4.18+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v4.18+
Reported-by: Doug Smythies <doug.smythies@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
V2->V3:
- Updated commit log.

V1->V2:
- Fixed the race condition using a different flag.

@Doug: I haven't changed the code since you last tested these. Your
Tested-by tag can be useful while applying the patches. Thanks.

kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index 636ca6f88c8e..2f382b0959e5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ struct sugov_policy {
struct task_struct *thread;
bool work_in_progress;

+ bool limits_changed;
bool need_freq_update;
};

@@ -89,8 +90,11 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
!cpufreq_this_cpu_can_update(sg_policy->policy))
return false;

- if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update))
+ if (unlikely(sg_policy->limits_changed)) {
+ sg_policy->limits_changed = false;
+ sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
return true;
+ }

delta_ns = time - sg_policy->last_freq_update_time;

@@ -437,7 +441,7 @@ static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
static inline void ignore_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
{
if (cpu_bw_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->bw_dl)
- sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
+ sg_policy->limits_changed = true;
}

static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
@@ -447,7 +451,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
unsigned long util, max;
unsigned int next_f;
- bool busy;
+ bool busy = false;

sugov_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time, flags);
sg_cpu->last_update = time;
@@ -457,7 +461,9 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
return;

- busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
+ /* Limits may have changed, don't skip frequency update */
+ if (!sg_policy->need_freq_update)
+ busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);

util = sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
max = sg_cpu->max;
@@ -831,6 +837,7 @@ static int sugov_start(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = 0;
sg_policy->next_freq = 0;
sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
+ sg_policy->limits_changed = false;
sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = 0;

@@ -879,7 +886,7 @@ static void sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
}

- sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
+ sg_policy->limits_changed = true;
}

struct cpufreq_governor schedutil_gov = {
--
2.21.0.rc0.269.g1a574e7a288b
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-02 07:45    [W:0.075 / U:28.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site