Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190131015139.126890-1-mka@chromium.org> <20190131083004.rkxehycu4pbbx52s@vireshk-i7>
In-Reply-To: <20190131083004.rkxehycu4pbbx52s@vireshk-i7>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:03:01 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hgBNY8cZgkn-u1qCCBrLxkS6T=srjMqsX50_H5V=ofHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Record stats when fast switching is enabled
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:30 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 30-01-19, 17:51, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > When fast switching is enabled currently no cpufreq stats are
> > recorded and the corresponding sysfs attributes appear empty (see
> > also commit 1aefc75b2449 ("cpufreq: stats: Make the stats code
> > non-modular")).
> >
> > Record the stats after a successful fast switch and re-enable access
> > through sysfs when fast switching is enabled. Since
> > cpufreq_stats_update() can now be called in interrupt context (during
> > a fast switch) disable local IRQs while holding the stats spinlock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > The change is so simple that I wonder if I'm missing some important
> > reason why the stats can't/shouldn't be updated during/after a fast
> > switch ...
> >
> > I would expect that holding the stats spinlock briefly in
> > cpufreq_stats_update() shouldn't be a problem. In theory it would
> > also be an option to have a per stats lock, though it seems overkill
> > from my (possibly ignorant) point of view.
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c       |  8 +++++++-
> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 11 +++--------
> >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index e35a886e00bcf..63aadb0bbddfe 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1857,9 +1857,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_unregister_notifier);
> >  unsigned int cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >                                       unsigned int target_freq)
> >  {
> > +     unsigned int freq;
> > +
> >       target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);
> >
> > -     return cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq);
> > +     freq = cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq);
> > +     if (freq)
> > +             cpufreq_stats_record_transition(policy, freq);
> > +
> > +     return freq;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_driver_fast_switch);
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> > index 1572129844a5b..21b919bfaeccf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> > @@ -30,11 +30,12 @@ struct cpufreq_stats {
> >  static void cpufreq_stats_update(struct cpufreq_stats *stats)
> >  {
> >       unsigned long long cur_time = get_jiffies_64();
> > +     unsigned long flags;
> >
> > -     spin_lock(&cpufreq_stats_lock);
> > +     spin_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_stats_lock, flags);
> >       stats->time_in_state[stats->last_index] += cur_time - stats->last_time;
> >       stats->last_time = cur_time;
> > -     spin_unlock(&cpufreq_stats_lock);
> > +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_stats_lock, flags);
> >  }
>
> The only problem that I can think of (or recall) is that this routine
> also gets called when time_in_state sysfs file is read and that can
> end up taking lock which the scheduler's hotpath will wait for.

What about the extra locking overhead in the scheduler context?