IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
This patch migrates few users of cpufreq tables to the new helpers
that work on sorted freq-tables.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
This routine can't fail unless the frequency table is invalid and
doesn't contain any valid entries.
Make it return the index and WARN() in case it is used for an invalid
table.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
The policy already has this pointer set, use it instead.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
There is absolutely no need to keep a copy to the freq-table in 'struct
od_policy_dbs_info'. Use policy->freq_table instead.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Some fields in struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s and struct cs_cpu_dbs_info_s
are only used for a limited set of CPUs. Namely, if a policy is
shared between multiple CPUs, those fields will only be used for one
of them (policy->cpu). This means that they really are per-policy
rather than per-CPU and holding room for them in per-CPU data
structures is generally wasteful. Also moving those fields into
per-policy data structures will allow some significant simplifications
to be made going forward.
For this reason, introduce struct cs_policy_dbs_info and
struct od_policy_dbs_info to hold those fields. Define each of the
new structures as an extension of struct policy_dbs_info (such that
struct policy_dbs_info is embedded in each of them) and introduce
new ->alloc and ->free governor callbacks to allocate and free
those structures, respectively, such that ->alloc() will return
a pointer to the struct policy_dbs_info embedded in the allocated
data structure and ->free() will take that pointer as its argument.
With that, modify the code accessing the data fields in question
in per-CPU data objects to look for them in the new structures
via the struct policy_dbs_info pointer available to it and drop
them from struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s and struct cs_cpu_dbs_info_s.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The struct policy_dbs_info objects representing per-policy governor
data are not accessible directly from the corresponding policy
objects. To access them, one has to get a pointer to the
struct cpu_dbs_info of policy->cpu and use the policy_dbs field of
that which isn't really straightforward.
To address that rearrange the governor data structures so the
governor_data pointer in struct cpufreq_policy will point to
struct policy_dbs_info (instead of struct dbs_data) and that will
contain a pointer to struct dbs_data.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Since it is possible to obtain a pointer to struct dbs_governor
from a pointer to the struct governor embedded in it with the help
of container_of(), the additional gov pointer in struct dbs_data
isn't really necessary.
Drop that pointer and make the code using it reach the dbs_governor
object via policy->governor.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
The ondemand and conservative governors are represented by
struct common_dbs_data whose name doesn't reflect the purpose it
is used for, so rename it to struct dbs_governor and rename
variables of that type accordingly.
No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Future AMD processors, starting with Family 16h, can provide software
with feedback on how the workload may respond to frequency change --
memory-bound workloads will not benefit from higher frequency, where
as compute-bound workloads will. This patch enables this "frequency
sensitivity feedback" to aid the ondemand governor to make better
frequency change decisions by hooking into the powersave bias.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@amd.com>
Acked-by: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>
Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
