Thread (16 messages) 16 messages, 4 authors, 2020-09-18

Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] cpufreq: report whether cpufreq supports Frequency Invariance (FI)

From: Sudeep Holla <hidden>
Date: 2020-09-02 15:48:46
Also in: linux-pm, lkml

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:55:47PM +0100, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Now that the update of the FI scale factor is done in cpufreq core for
selected functions - target(), target_index() and fast_switch(),
we can provide feedback to the task scheduler and architecture code
on whether cpufreq supports FI.

For this purpose provide an external function to expose whether the
cpufreq drivers support FI, by using a static key.

The logic behind the enablement of cpufreq-based invariance is as
follows:
 - cpufreq-based invariance is disabled by default
 - cpufreq-based invariance is enabled if any of the callbacks
   above is implemented while the unsupported setpolicy() is not

The cpufreq_supports_freq_invariance() function only returns whether
cpufreq is instrumented with the arch_set_freq_scale() calls that
result in support for frequency invariance. Due to the lack of knowledge
on whether the implementation of arch_set_freq_scale() actually results
in the setting of a scale factor based on cpufreq information, it is up
to the architecture code to ensure the setting and provision of the
scale factor to the scheduler.

Signed-off-by: Ionela Voinescu <redacted>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <redacted>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/cpufreq.h   |  5 +++++
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index 4d5fe777184a..570bf2ebe9d4 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver *cpufreq_driver;
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpufreq_policy *, cpufreq_cpu_data);
 static DEFINE_RWLOCK(cpufreq_driver_lock);
 
+static DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(cpufreq_freq_invariance);
+bool cpufreq_supports_freq_invariance(void)
+{
+	return static_branch_likely(&cpufreq_freq_invariance);
+}
+
 /* Flag to suspend/resume CPUFreq governors */
 static bool cpufreq_suspended;
 
@@ -2720,6 +2726,15 @@ int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data)
 	cpufreq_driver = driver_data;
 	write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
 
+	/*
+	 * Mark support for the scheduler's frequency invariance engine for
+	 * drivers that implement target(), target_index() or fast_switch().
+	 */
+	if (!cpufreq_driver->setpolicy) {
+		static_branch_enable_cpuslocked(&cpufreq_freq_invariance);
+		pr_debug("supports frequency invariance");
+	}
+
 	if (driver_data->setpolicy)
[super nit] while I understand cpufreq_driver = driver_data, it looks odd
if 2 consecutive statements refer it with different variables. Or am I
confusing myself hugely.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help