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;
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: Align trace event behavior of fast switching
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 11:44:30 +0200
Message-ID: <58065333.3TlMmDsHGl@kreacher>
In-Reply-To: <20190826094058.GP2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190807153340.11516-1-douglas.raillard@arm.com> <3316959.EEulJYEQYJ@kreacher> <20190826094058.GP2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Monday, August 26, 2019 11:40:58 AM CEST Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:10:52AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 5:33:40 PM CEST Douglas RAILLARD wrote:
> > > Fast switching path only emits an event for the CPU of interest, whereas the
> > > regular path emits an event for all the CPUs that had their frequency changed,
> > > i.e. all the CPUs sharing the same policy.
> > > 
> > > With the current behavior, looking at cpu_frequency event for a given CPU that
> > > is using the fast switching path will not give the correct frequency signal.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 7 ++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > index 1f82ab108bab..975ccc3de807 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > @@ -153,6 +153,7 @@ static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > >  			      unsigned int next_freq)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > > +	int cpu;
> > >  
> > >  	if (!sugov_update_next_freq(sg_policy, time, next_freq))
> > >  		return;
> > > @@ -162,7 +163,11 @@ static void sugov_fast_switch(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > >  		return;
> > >  
> > >  	policy->cur = next_freq;
> > > -	trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, smp_processor_id());
> > > +
> > > +	if (trace_cpu_frequency_enabled()) {
> > > +		for_each_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus)
> > > +			trace_cpu_frequency(next_freq, cpu);
> > > +	}
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > > 
> > 
> > Peter, any comments here?
> 
> I was thinking this would be a static map and dealing with it would be
> something trivially done in post (or manually while reading), but sure,
> whatever:
> 
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
> 

Thanks, queuing up this one for 5.4.