Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] arm64: use activity monitors for frequency invariance
From: Ionela Voinescu <hidden>
Date: 2020-02-26 10:18:51
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-pm, lkml
From: Ionela Voinescu <hidden>
Date: 2020-02-26 10:18:51
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-pm, lkml
Hi Valentin, Lukasz, On Tuesday 25 Feb 2020 at 09:59:20 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote: [..]
On 2/24/20 6:40 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:quoted
Ionela Voinescu writes:quoted
+static inline intThat should be bool, seeing what it returns.
Will do! [..]
quoted
quoted
+#ifndef arch_cpu_freq_counters +static __always_inline +bool arch_cpu_freq_counters(struct cpumask *cpus) +{ + return false; +} +#endifApologies for commenting on this only now, I had missed it in my earlier round of review. I would've liked to keep this contained within arm64 stuff until we agreed on a more generic counter-driven FIE interface, but seems like we can't evade it due to the arch_topology situation. Would it make sense to relocate this stub to arch_topology.h instead, at least for the time being? That way the only non-arm64 changes are condensed in arch_topology (even if it doesn't change much in terms of header files, since topology.h imports arch_topology.h)Or make it as a 'weak' and place it just above the arch_set_freq_scale() in arch_topology.c, not touching headers?
Yes, you guys are right, this works better nicely confined to arch_topology.c/h. As Lukasz suggested, I'll make arch_cpu_freq_counters (while here, it probably works better renamed to arch_freq_counters_available) a weak function in arch_topology.c with its strong definition in arm64/kernel/topology.c. The diff is large(ish) so I'll push v5 directly with this change. Thank you both for the review, Ionela.