From e61a41256edf9f425039129757af4a80b5ed8162 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Viresh Kumar Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:01:17 +0530 Subject: cpufreq: dev_pm_qos_update_request() can return 1 on success dev_pm_qos_update_request() can return 1 on success, so don't treat it as an error. Fixes: 18c49926c4bf ("cpufreq: Add QoS requests for userspace constraints") Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 8dda62367816..c28ebf2810f1 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -2528,7 +2528,7 @@ static int cpufreq_boost_set_sw(int state) } ret = dev_pm_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max); - if (ret) + if (ret < 0) break; } -- cgit v1.2.3 From 600f5badb78c316146d062cfd7af4a2cfb655baa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Viresh Kumar Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 12:36:01 +0530 Subject: cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update when limits change 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. Trying to fix this by using only one flag, i.e. need_freq_update, can lead to a race condition where the flag gets cleared without forcing us to change the frequency at least once. And so this patch introduces another flag to avoid that race condition. Fixes: ecd288429126 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX") Cc: v4.18+ # v4.18+ Reported-by: Doug Smythies Tested-by: Doug Smythies Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 14 ++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c index 636ca6f88c8e..867b4bb6d4be 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, @@ -457,7 +461,8 @@ 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 */ + busy = !sg_policy->need_freq_update && sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu); util = sugov_get_util(sg_cpu); max = sg_cpu->max; @@ -831,6 +836,7 @@ 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 +885,7 @@ 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 = { -- cgit v1.2.3