On Friday, March 19, 2021 8:37:51 AM CET Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18-03-21, 22:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Also, is there a lock order comment in cpufreq somewhere?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > I tried
> > following it, but eventually gave up and figured 'asking' lockdep was
> > far simpler.
>
> This will get called from CPU's online/offline path at worst, nothing more.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but for completeness the callback
is also set/unset on driver registration and governor switch.
> > +static void cpufreq_update_optimize(void)
> > +{
> > + struct update_util_data *data;
> > + cpu_util_update_f func = NULL, dfunc;
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > + data = per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu);
> > + dfunc = data ? READ_ONCE(data->func) : NULL;
> > +
> > + if (dfunc) {
> > + if (!func)
> > + func = dfunc;
> > + else if (func != dfunc)
> > + return;
> > + } else if (func)
> > + return;
> > + }
>
> So there is nothing cpufreq specific IIRC that can help make this better, this
> is basically per policy.
Well, in some cases the driver knows that there will never be more that 1 CPU
per policy and so schedutil will never use the "shared" variant.
For instance, with intel_pstate all CPUs will always use the same callback.
> For example, on an ARM platform we have two cpufreq policies with one policy
> covering 4 CPUs, while the other one covering only 1 (maybe because we didn't
> add those CPUs in DT or something else), then also we will end up separate
> routines.
>
> Or if we take all CPUs of a policy offline and then bring them up one by one,
> I
> think for the first CPU online event in that policy we will end up using the
> sugov_update_single_freq() variant for some time, until the time more CPUs
> come
> up.
>
> So traversing the way you did this is probably something that will work
> properly
> in all corner cases.
Agreed.
It might be simplified in some cases, though, AFAICS.
