Techwizz/kernel-fxtec-pro1x
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

[CPUFREQ] CPUfreq ondemand: update sampling rate without waiting for next sampling

Browse source 
When a new sampling rate is shorter than the current one, (e.g., 1 sec
--> 10 ms) regardless how short the new one is, the current ondemand
mechanism wait for the previously set timer to be expired.

For example, if the user has just expressed that the sampling rate
should be 10 ms from now and the previous was 1000 ms, the new rate may
become effective 999 ms later, which could be not acceptable for the
user if the user has intended to speed up sampling because the system is
expected to react to CPU load fluctuation quickly from __now__.

In order to address this issue, we need to cancel the previously set
timer (schedule_delayed_work) and reset the timer if resetting timer is
expected to trigger the delayed_work ealier.

Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
MyungJoo Ham 2012-02-29 17:54:41 +09:00 committed by Dave Jones
parent 34ee550752
commit fd0ef7a058
1 changed files with 57 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

58
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
View file

@ -257,6 +257,62 @@ show_one(sampling_down_factor, sampling_down_factor);
show_one(ignore_nice_load, ignore_nice);
show_one(powersave_bias, powersave_bias);
/**
* update_sampling_rate - update sampling rate effective immediately if needed.
* @new_rate: new sampling rate
*
* If new rate is smaller than the old, simply updaing
* dbs_tuners_int.sampling_rate might not be appropriate. For example,
* if the original sampling_rate was 1 second and the requested new sampling
* rate is 10 ms because the user needs immediate reaction from ondemand
* governor, but not sure if higher frequency will be required or not,
* then, the governor may change the sampling rate too late; up to 1 second
* later. Thus, if we are reducing the sampling rate, we need to make the
* new value effective immediately.
*/
static void update_sampling_rate(unsigned int new_rate)
{
int cpu;
dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = new_rate
= max(new_rate, min_sampling_rate);
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
struct cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info;
unsigned long next_sampling, appointed_at;
policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
if (!policy)
continue;
dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, policy->cpu);
cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
mutex_lock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
if (!delayed_work_pending(&dbs_info->work)) {
mutex_unlock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
continue;
}
next_sampling = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate);
appointed_at = dbs_info->work.timer.expires;
if (time_before(next_sampling, appointed_at)) {
mutex_unlock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dbs_info->work);
mutex_lock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
schedule_delayed_work_on(dbs_info->cpu, &dbs_info->work,
usecs_to_jiffies(new_rate));
}
mutex_unlock(&dbs_info->timer_mutex);
}
}
static ssize_t store_sampling_rate(struct kobject *a, struct attribute *b,
const char *buf, size_t count)
{
@ -265,7 +321,7 @@ static ssize_t store_sampling_rate(struct kobject *a, struct attribute *b,
ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
if (ret != 1)
return -EINVAL;
dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate = max(input, min_sampling_rate);
update_sampling_rate(input);
return count;
}