From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 7/7][Resend] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:58:34 +0200
Message-ID: <2253696.9jRPsKRmxz@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.5.0-rc1+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20160328090333.GK32495@vireshk-i7>
References: <7262976.zPkLj56ATU@vostro.rjw.lan> <6666532.7ULg06hQ7e@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160328090333.GK32495@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 19722
Lines: 654

On Monday, March 28, 2016 02:33:33 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22-03-16, 02:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,528 @@
> > +/*
> > + * CPUFreq governor based on scheduler-provided CPU utilization data.
> > + *
> > + * Copyright (C) 2016, Intel Corporation
> > + * Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> > + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/slab.h>
> > +#include <trace/events/power.h>
> > +
> > +#include "sched.h"
> > +
> > +struct sugov_tunables {
> > +	struct gov_attr_set attr_set;
> > +	unsigned int rate_limit_us;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct sugov_policy {
> > +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> > +
> > +	struct sugov_tunables *tunables;
> > +	struct list_head tunables_hook;
> > +
> > +	raw_spinlock_t update_lock;  /* For shared policies */
> > +	u64 last_freq_update_time;
> > +	s64 freq_update_delay_ns;
> 
> And why isn't it part of sugov_tunables?

Because it is not a tunable.

> Its gonna be same for all policies sharing tunables ..

The value will be the same, but the cacheline won't.

> 
> > +	unsigned int next_freq;
> > +
> > +	/* The next fields are only needed if fast switch cannot be used. */
> > +	struct irq_work irq_work;
> > +	struct work_struct work;
> > +	struct mutex work_lock;
> > +	bool work_in_progress;
> > +
> > +	bool need_freq_update;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct sugov_cpu {
> > +	struct update_util_data update_util;
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
> > +
> > +	/* The fields below are only needed when sharing a policy. */
> > +	unsigned long util;
> > +	unsigned long max;
> > +	u64 last_update;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct sugov_cpu, sugov_cpu);
> > +
> > +/************************ Governor internals ***********************/
> > +
> > +static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
> 
> To make its purpose clear, maybe name it as: sugov_should_reevaluate_freq(),
> because we aren't updating the freq just yet, but deciding if we need to
> reevaluate again or not.

Splitting hairs anyone?

> As its going to be called from hotpath, maybe mark it as inline and let compiler
> decide ?

The compiler will make it inline if it decides it's worth it anyway.

> > +{
> > +	u64 delta_ns;
> > +
> > +	if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	if (unlikely(sg_policy->need_freq_update)) {
> > +		sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
> > +		return true;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	delta_ns = time - sg_policy->last_freq_update_time;
> > +	return (s64)delta_ns >= sg_policy->freq_update_delay_ns;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> 
> Maybe sugov_update_freq() ?

Can you please give up suggesting the names?

What's wrong with the original one?  Is it confusing in some way or something?

> > +				unsigned int next_freq)
> > +{
> > +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > +
> > +	sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> > +
> > +	if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
> > +		if (next_freq > policy->max)
> > +			next_freq = policy->max;
> > +		else if (next_freq < policy->min)
> > +			next_freq = policy->min;
> > +
> > +		if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) {
> > +			trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id());
> > +			return;
> > +		}
> > +		sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> 
> Why not do all of above stuff as part of else block as well and move it before
> the if {} block ?

Because the trace_cpu_frequency() is needed only in the fast switch case.

> > +		next_freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
> > +		if (next_freq == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
> > +			return;
> > +
> > +		policy->cur = next_freq;
> > +		trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
> > +	} else if (sg_policy->next_freq != next_freq) {
> > +		sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> > +		sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
> > +		irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * get_next_freq - Compute a new frequency for a given cpufreq policy.
> > + * @policy: cpufreq policy object to compute the new frequency for.
> > + * @util: Current CPU utilization.
> > + * @max: CPU capacity.
> > + *
> > + * If the utilization is frequency-invariant, choose the new frequency to be
> > + * proportional to it, that is
> > + *
> > + * next_freq = C * max_freq * util / max
> > + *
> > + * Otherwise, approximate the would-be frequency-invariant utilization by
> > + * util_raw * (curr_freq / max_freq) which leads to
> > + *
> > + * next_freq = C * curr_freq * util_raw / max
> > + *
> > + * Take C = 1.25 for the frequency tipping point at (util / max) = 0.8.
> > + */
> > +static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +				  unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int freq = arch_scale_freq_invariant() ?
> > +				policy->cpuinfo.max_freq : policy->cur;
> > +
> > +	return (freq + (freq >> 2)) * util / max;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > +				unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct sugov_cpu, update_util);
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
> > +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > +	unsigned int next_f;
> > +
> > +	if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	next_f = util == ULONG_MAX ? policy->cpuinfo.max_freq :
> > +			get_next_freq(policy, util, max);
> > +	sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy,
> > +					   unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> > +{
> > +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > +	unsigned int max_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> > +	u64 last_freq_update_time = sg_policy->last_freq_update_time;
> > +	unsigned int j;
> > +
> > +	if (util == ULONG_MAX)
> > +		return max_f;
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
> > +		struct sugov_cpu *j_sg_cpu;
> > +		unsigned long j_util, j_max;
> > +		u64 delta_ns;
> > +
> > +		if (j == smp_processor_id())
> > +			continue;
> 
> Why skip local CPU completely ?

Because the original util and max come from it.

> And if we really want to do that, what about something like for_each_cpu_and_not
> to kill the unnecessary if {} statement ?

That will work.
 
> > +
> > +		j_sg_cpu = &per_cpu(sugov_cpu, j);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If the CPU utilization was last updated before the previous
> > +		 * frequency update and the time elapsed between the last update
> > +		 * of the CPU utilization and the last frequency update is long
> > +		 * enough, don't take the CPU into account as it probably is
> > +		 * idle now.
> > +		 */
> > +		delta_ns = last_freq_update_time - j_sg_cpu->last_update;
> > +		if ((s64)delta_ns > TICK_NSEC)
> > +			continue;
> > +
> > +		j_util = j_sg_cpu->util;
> > +		if (j_util == ULONG_MAX)
> > +			return max_f;
> > +
> > +		j_max = j_sg_cpu->max;
> > +		if (j_util * max > j_max * util) {
> > +			util = j_util;
> > +			max = j_max;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return get_next_freq(policy, util, max);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > +				unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct sugov_cpu, update_util);
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
> > +	unsigned int next_f;
> > +
> > +	raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> > +
> > +	sg_cpu->util = util;
> > +	sg_cpu->max = max;
> > +	sg_cpu->last_update = time;
> > +
> > +	if (sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) {
> > +		next_f = sugov_next_freq_shared(sg_policy, util, max);
> > +		sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	raw_spin_unlock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> > +	__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
> > +				CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> > +	mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> > +
> > +	sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_irq_work(struct irq_work *irq_work)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
> > +
> > +	sg_policy = container_of(irq_work, struct sugov_policy, irq_work);
> > +	schedule_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &sg_policy->work);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/************************** sysfs interface ************************/
> > +
> > +static struct sugov_tunables *global_tunables;
> > +static DEFINE_MUTEX(global_tunables_lock);
> > +
> > +static inline struct sugov_tunables *to_sugov_tunables(struct gov_attr_set *attr_set)
> > +{
> > +	return container_of(attr_set, struct sugov_tunables, attr_set);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static ssize_t rate_limit_us_show(struct gov_attr_set *attr_set, char *buf)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_tunables *tunables = to_sugov_tunables(attr_set);
> > +
> > +	return sprintf(buf, "%u\n", tunables->rate_limit_us);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static ssize_t rate_limit_us_store(struct gov_attr_set *attr_set, const char *buf,
> > +				   size_t count)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_tunables *tunables = to_sugov_tunables(attr_set);
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
> > +	unsigned int rate_limit_us;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &rate_limit_us);
> 
> checkpatch warns for this, we should be using kstrtou32 here ..

Hmm.  checkpatch.  Oh well.

> > +	if (ret != 1)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +	tunables->rate_limit_us = rate_limit_us;
> > +
> > +	list_for_each_entry(sg_policy, &attr_set->policy_list, tunables_hook)
> > +		sg_policy->freq_update_delay_ns = rate_limit_us * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > +
> > +	return count;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct governor_attr rate_limit_us = __ATTR_RW(rate_limit_us);
> 
> Why not reuse gov_attr_rw() ?

Would it work?

> > +
> > +static struct attribute *sugov_attributes[] = {
> > +	&rate_limit_us.attr,
> > +	NULL
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct kobj_type sugov_tunables_ktype = {
> > +	.default_attrs = sugov_attributes,
> > +	.sysfs_ops = &governor_sysfs_ops,
> > +};
> > +
> > +/********************** cpufreq governor interface *********************/
> > +
> > +static struct cpufreq_governor schedutil_gov;
> > +
> > +static struct sugov_policy *sugov_policy_alloc(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
> > +
> > +	sg_policy = kzalloc(sizeof(*sg_policy), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!sg_policy)
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> > +	sg_policy->policy = policy;
> > +	init_irq_work(&sg_policy->irq_work, sugov_irq_work);
> > +	INIT_WORK(&sg_policy->work, sugov_work);
> > +	mutex_init(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_init(&sg_policy->update_lock);
> > +	return sg_policy;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_policy_free(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
> > +{
> > +	mutex_destroy(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> > +	kfree(sg_policy);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct sugov_tunables *sugov_tunables_alloc(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_tunables *tunables;
> > +
> > +	tunables = kzalloc(sizeof(*tunables), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (tunables)
> > +		gov_attr_set_init(&tunables->attr_set, &sg_policy->tunables_hook);
> > +
> > +	return tunables;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_tunables_free(struct sugov_tunables *tunables)
> > +{
> > +	if (!have_governor_per_policy())
> > +		global_tunables = NULL;
> > +
> > +	kfree(tunables);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sugov_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
> > +	struct sugov_tunables *tunables;
> > +	unsigned int lat;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	/* State should be equivalent to EXIT */
> > +	if (policy->governor_data)
> > +		return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > +	sg_policy = sugov_policy_alloc(policy);
> > +	if (!sg_policy)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&global_tunables_lock);
> > +
> > +	if (global_tunables) {
> > +		if (WARN_ON(have_governor_per_policy())) {
> > +			ret = -EINVAL;
> > +			goto free_sg_policy;
> > +		}
> > +		policy->governor_data = sg_policy;
> > +		sg_policy->tunables = global_tunables;
> > +
> > +		gov_attr_set_get(&global_tunables->attr_set, &sg_policy->tunables_hook);
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	tunables = sugov_tunables_alloc(sg_policy);
> > +	if (!tunables) {
> > +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> > +		goto free_sg_policy;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	tunables->rate_limit_us = LATENCY_MULTIPLIER;
> > +	lat = policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency / NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > +	if (lat)
> > +		tunables->rate_limit_us *= lat;
> > +
> > +	if (!have_governor_per_policy())
> > +		global_tunables = tunables;
> 
> To make sugov_tunables_alloc/free() symmetric to each other, should we move
> above into sugov_tunables_alloc() ?

It doesn't matter too much, does it?

> > +
> > +	policy->governor_data = sg_policy;
> > +	sg_policy->tunables = tunables;
> > +
> > +	ret = kobject_init_and_add(&tunables->attr_set.kobj, &sugov_tunables_ktype,
> > +				   get_governor_parent_kobj(policy), "%s",
> > +				   schedutil_gov.name);
> > +	if (!ret)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	/* Failure, so roll back. */
> > +	policy->governor_data = NULL;
> > +	sugov_tunables_free(tunables);
> > +
> > + free_sg_policy:
> > +	pr_err("cpufreq: schedutil governor initialization failed (error %d)\n", ret);
> > +	sugov_policy_free(sg_policy);
> 
> I didn't like the way we have mixed success and failure path here, just to save
> a single line of code (unlock).

I don't follow, sorry.  Yes, I can do unlock/return instead of the "goto out",
but then the goto label is still needed.

> Over that it does things, that aren't symmetric anymore. For example, we have
> called sugov_policy_alloc() without locks

Are you sure?

> and are freeing it from within locks.

Both are under global_tunables_lock.

> > +
> > + out:
> > +	mutex_unlock(&global_tunables_lock);
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sugov_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
> > +	struct sugov_tunables *tunables = sg_policy->tunables;
> > +	unsigned int count;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&global_tunables_lock);
> > +
> > +	count = gov_attr_set_put(&tunables->attr_set, &sg_policy->tunables_hook);
> > +	policy->governor_data = NULL;
> > +	if (!count)
> > +		sugov_tunables_free(tunables);
> > +
> > +	mutex_unlock(&global_tunables_lock);
> > +
> > +	sugov_policy_free(sg_policy);
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sugov_start(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
> > +	unsigned int cpu;
> > +
> > +	cpufreq_enable_fast_switch(policy);
> 
> Why should we be doing this from START, which gets called a lot compared to
> INIT/EXIT? This is something which should be moved to INIT IMHO.

Yes, INIT would be a better call site.

> > +	sg_policy->freq_update_delay_ns = sg_policy->tunables->rate_limit_us * NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > +	sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = 0;
> > +	sg_policy->next_freq = UINT_MAX;
> > +	sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
> > +	sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus) {
> > +		struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = &per_cpu(sugov_cpu, cpu);
> > +
> > +		sg_cpu->sg_policy = sg_policy;
> > +		if (policy_is_shared(policy)) {
> > +			sg_cpu->util = ULONG_MAX;
> > +			sg_cpu->max = 0;
> > +			sg_cpu->last_update = 0;
> > +			cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(cpu, &sg_cpu->update_util,
> > +						     sugov_update_shared);
> > +		} else {
> > +			cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(cpu, &sg_cpu->update_util,
> > +						     sugov_update_single);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sugov_stop(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
> > +	unsigned int cpu;
> > +
> > +	for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
> > +		cpufreq_remove_update_util_hook(cpu);
> > +
> > +	synchronize_sched();
> > +
> > +	irq_work_sync(&sg_policy->irq_work);
> > +	cancel_work_sync(&sg_policy->work);
> 
> And again, we should have a disable-fast-switch as well..

That's not necessary.

> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
> > +
> > +	if (!policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
> > +		mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> > +
> > +		if (policy->max < policy->cur)
> > +			__cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->max,
> > +						CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> > +		else if (policy->min > policy->cur)
> > +			__cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->min,
> > +						CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> > +
> > +		mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> 
> Maybe we can try to take lock only if we are going to switch the freq, i.e. only
> if sugov_limits is called for policy->min/max update?

The __cpufreq_driver_target() in sugov_work() potentially updates policy->cur
that's checked here, so I don't really think this is a good idea.

> i.e.
> 
> void __sugov_limits(policy, freq, relation)
> {
> 		mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>                 __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq, relation);
> 		mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> }
> 
> static int sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> 	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
> 
> 	if (!policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
> 		if (policy->max < policy->cur)
>                         __sugov_limits(policy, policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
> 		else if (policy->min > policy->cur)
>                         __sugov_limits(policy, policy->min, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> 	}
> 
> 	sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> ??
> 
> And maybe the same for current governors? (ofcourse in a separate patch, I can
> do that if you want).
> 
> 
> Also, why not just always do 'sg_policy->need_freq_update = true' from this
> routine and remove everything else? It will be taken care of on next evaluation.

It only would be taken care of quickly enough in the fast switch case.

> > +
> > +int sugov_governor(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int event)
> > +{
> > +	if (event == CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_INIT) {
> > +		return sugov_init(policy);
> > +	} else if (policy->governor_data) {
> > +		switch (event) {
> > +		case CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT:
> > +			return sugov_exit(policy);
> > +		case CPUFREQ_GOV_START:
> > +			return sugov_start(policy);
> > +		case CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP:
> > +			return sugov_stop(policy);
> > +		case CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS:
> > +			return sugov_limits(policy);
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > +	return -EINVAL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct cpufreq_governor schedutil_gov = {
> > +	.name = "schedutil",
> > +	.governor = sugov_governor,
> > +	.owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int __init sugov_module_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	return cpufreq_register_governor(&schedutil_gov);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void __exit sugov_module_exit(void)
> > +{
> > +	cpufreq_unregister_governor(&schedutil_gov);
> > +}
> > +
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Utilization-based CPU frequency selection");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> 
> Maybe a MODULE_ALIAS as well ?

Sorry, I don't follow.

Thanks,
Rafael