On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:33:40 PM CEST Douglas RAILLARD wrote:
> Fast switching path only emits an event for the CPU of interest, whereas the
> regular path emits an event for all the CPUs that had their frequency changed,
> i.e. all the CPUs sharing the same policy.
>
> With the current behavior, looking at cpu_frequency event for a given CPU that
> is using the fast switching path will not give the correct frequency signal.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raill...@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 1f82ab108bab..975ccc3de807 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy
> *sg_policy, u64 time,
> unsigned int next_freq)
> {
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> + int cpu;
>
> if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq))
> return;
> @@ -162,7 +163,11 @@ static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy
> *sg_policy, u64 time,
> return;
>
> policy->cur = next_freq;
> - trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
> +
> + if (trace_cpu_frequency_enabled()) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
> + trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, cpu);
> + }
> }
>
> static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
>
Peter, any comments here?
