Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] sched/cpufreq: Attach perf domain to sugov policy | From | Douglas Raillard <> | Date | Thu, 17 Oct 2019 11:22:16 +0100 |
| |
Hi Dietmar,
On 10/17/19 9:57 AM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 11/10/2019 15:44, Douglas RAILLARD wrote: > > [...] > >> @@ -66,6 +70,38 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sugov_cpu, sugov_cpu); >> >> /************************ Governor internals ***********************/ >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL >> +static void sugov_policy_attach_pd(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) >> +{ >> + struct em_perf_domain *pd; >> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy; > > Shouldn't always order local variable declarations from longest to > shortest line?
Can't find any reference to that rule in the coding style, although I'm happy to change order if that's deemed useful.
> >> + >> + sg_policy->pd = NULL; >> + pd = em_cpu_get(policy->cpu); >> + if (!pd) >> + return; >> + >> + if (cpumask_equal(policy->related_cpus, to_cpumask(pd->cpus))) >> + sg_policy->pd = pd; >> + else >> + pr_warn("%s: Not all CPUs in schedutil policy %u share the same perf domain, no perf domain for that policy will be registered\n", >> + __func__, policy->cpu); > > Maybe {} because of 2 lines?
+1
>> +} >> + >> +static struct em_perf_domain *sugov_policy_get_pd( >> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) > > > Maybe this way? This format is already used in this file. > > static struct em_perf_domain * > sugov_policy_get_pd(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) >
I also prefer this kind of non-indented form that always stays indented across renames :)
>> +{ >> + return sg_policy->pd; >> +} >> +#else /* CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL */ >> +static void sugov_policy_attach_pd(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) {} >> +static struct em_perf_domain *sugov_policy_get_pd( >> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) >> +{ >> + return NULL; >> +} >> +#endif /* CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL */ >> + >> static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time) >> { >> s64 delta_ns; >> @@ -859,6 +895,9 @@ static int sugov_start(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) >> sugov_update_shared : >> sugov_update_single); >> } >> + >> + sugov_policy_attach_pd(sg_policy); >> + >> return 0; >> } > > A sugov_policy_detach_pd() called from sugov_stop() (doing for instance > the g_policy->pd = NULL) is not needed?
From what I could see, sugov_stop() will always be followed by sugov_start() before it's used again, so that does not seem more risky than not de-initializing sg_cpu's for example.
| |