Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 14 Sep 2023 23:07:12 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] energy_model: use a fixed reference frequency | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> |
| |
On 01/09/2023 15:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/include/linux/energy_model.h b/include/linux/energy_model.h > index b9caa01dfac4..7ee07be6928e 100644 > --- a/include/linux/energy_model.h > +++ b/include/linux/energy_model.h > @@ -204,6 +204,20 @@ struct em_perf_state *em_pd_get_efficient_state(struct em_perf_domain *pd, > return ps; > } > > +#ifdef arch_scale_freq_ref > +static __always_inline > +unsigned long arch_scale_freq_ref_em(int cpu, struct em_perf_domain *pd)
Why is this function named with the arch prefix?
So far we have 5 arch functions (arch_scale_freq_tick() <-> arch_scale_freq_ref()) and e.g. Arm/Arm64 defines them with there topology_foo implementations.
Isn't arch_scale_freq_ref_em() (as well as arch_scale_freq_ref_policy()) different in this sense and so a proper EM function which should manifest in its name?
> +{ > + return arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu); > +} > +#else > +static __always_inline > +unsigned long arch_scale_freq_ref_em(int cpu, struct em_perf_domain *pd) > +{ > + return pd->table[pd->nr_perf_states - 1].frequency; > +} > +#endif
[...]
> @@ -241,11 +255,11 @@ static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd, > */ > cpu = cpumask_first(to_cpumask(pd->cpus)); > scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu); > - ps = &pd->table[pd->nr_perf_states - 1]; > + ref_freq = arch_scale_freq_ref_em(cpu, pd);
Why not using existing `unsigned long freq` here like in schedutil's get_next_freq()?
> > max_util = map_util_perf(max_util);
[...]
| |