[PATCH 6/9] cpufreq: governor: Reset sample delay in store_sampling_rate()

From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Sun Feb 14 2016 - 20:21:45 EST


From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>

If store_sampling_rate() updates the sample delay when the ondemand
governor is in the middle of its high/low dance (OD_SUB_SAMPLE sample
type is set), the governor will still do the bottom half of the
previous sample which may take too much time.

To prevent that from happening, change store_sampling_rate() to always
reset the sample delay to 0 which also is consistent with the new
behavior of cpufreq_governor_limits().

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 16 ++++------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
@@ -38,10 +38,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dbs_data_mutex);
* reducing the sampling rate, we need to make the new value effective
* immediately.
*
- * On the other hand, if new rate is larger than the old, then we may evaluate
- * the load too soon, and it might we worth updating sample_delay_ns then as
- * well.
- *
* This must be called with dbs_data->mutex held, otherwise traversing
* policy_dbs_list isn't safe.
*/
@@ -69,18 +65,14 @@ ssize_t store_sampling_rate(struct dbs_d
* really doesn't matter. If the read returns a value that's
* too big, the sample will be skipped, but the next invocation
* of dbs_update_util_handler() (when the update has been
- * completed) will take a sample. If the returned value is too
- * small, the sample will be taken immediately, but that isn't a
- * problem, as we want the new rate to take effect immediately
- * anyway.
+ * completed) will take a sample.
*
* If this runs in parallel with dbs_work_handler(), we may end
* up overwriting the sample_delay_ns value that it has just
- * written, but the difference should not be too big and it will
- * be corrected next time a sample is taken, so it shouldn't be
- * significant.
+ * written, but it will be corrected next time a sample is
+ * taken, so it shouldn't be significant.
*/
- gov_update_sample_delay(policy_dbs, dbs_data->sampling_rate);
+ gov_update_sample_delay(policy_dbs, 0);
mutex_unlock(&policy_dbs->timer_mutex);
}