Hey Lukasz,
On Monday 11 May 2020 at 12:19:01 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote: <snip>
@@ -27,12 +29,15 @@ struct em_perf_state {
- em_perf_domain - Performance domain
- @table: List of performance states, in ascending order
- @nr_perf_states: Number of performance states
- @cpus: Cpumask covering the CPUs of the domain
- @cpus: Cpumask covering the CPUs of the domain. It's here
for performance reasons to avoid potential cache
misses during energy calculations in the scheduler
And because that saves a pointer, and simplifies allocating/freeing that memory region :)
<snip>
diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c index 5b8a1566526a..9cc7f2973600 100644 --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c @@ -2,8 +2,9 @@ /*
- Energy Model of CPUs
Should this comment change too?
<snip>
-static void em_debug_create_pd(struct em_perf_domain *pd, int cpu) +static void em_debug_create_pd(struct device *dev) { struct dentry *d;
char name[8]; int i;
snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "pd%d", cpu);
/* Create the directory of the performance domain */
d = debugfs_create_dir(name, rootdir);
- d = debugfs_create_dir(dev_name(dev), rootdir);
So what will be the name for the perf domain of CPUs now? cpuX?
<snip>
@@ -142,8 +149,8 @@ em_create_pd(struct device *dev, int nr_states, struct em_data_callback *cb, */ opp_eff = freq / power; if (opp_eff >= prev_opp_eff)
pr_warn("pd%d: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: em_perf_state %d >= em_perf_state%d\n",cpu, i, i - 1);
dev_dbg(dev, "EM: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: em_perf_state %d >= em_perf_state%d\n",i, i - 1);
It feels like changing from warn to debug doesn't really belong to this patch no?
<snip>
@@ -216,47 +274,50 @@ int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states, */ mutex_lock(&em_pd_mutex);
- for_each_cpu(cpu, span) {
/* Make sure we don't register again an existing domain. */if (READ_ONCE(per_cpu(em_data, cpu))) {ret = -EEXIST;goto unlock;}
- if (dev->em_pd) {
ret = -EEXIST;goto unlock;- }
/** All CPUs of a domain must have the same micro-architecture* since they all share the same table.*/cap = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);if (prev_cap && prev_cap != cap) {pr_err("CPUs of %*pbl must have the same capacity\n",cpumask_pr_args(span));
- if (_is_cpu_device(dev)) {
Something like
if (!_is_cpu_device(dev)) goto device;
would limit the diff a bit, but that may just be personal taste.
But appart from these nits, the patch LGTM.
Thanks, Quentin