[PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update when limits change

[Viresh Kumar]

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.

Fixes: ecd288429126 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX")
Cc: v4.18+ <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # v4.18+
Reported-by: Doug Smythies <doug.smyth...@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
---
@Doug: Can you please provide your Tested-by for this commit, as it
already fixed the issue around acpi-cpufreq driver.

We will continue to see what's wrong with intel-pstate though.

 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