On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:10:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?
I was thinking this would be a static map and dealing with it would be
something trivially done in post (or manually while reading), but sure,
whatever:
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
