Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpufreq:boost: Add support for software based CPUfrequency boost

[Viresh Kumar]

Hi,

On 6 June 2013 12:37, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This commit adds support for software based frequency boosting.
> Exynos4 SoCs (e.g. 4x12) allow setting of frequency above its normal
> condition limits. This can be done for some short time.
>
> Overclocking (boost) support came from cpufreq driver (which is platform
> dependent). Hence the data structure describing it is defined at its file.
>
> To allow support for either SW and HW (Intel) based boosting, the cpufreq
> core code has been extended to support both solutions.
>
> The main boost switch has been put at /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost.

Log requires some better paragraphs but I am not concerned about it for now.

> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c    |  156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c |   87 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h      |   35 +++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 275 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

My initial view on this patch is: "It is overly engineered and needs
to get simplified"

> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index ca74e27..8cf9a92 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -133,6 +133,11 @@ bool have_governor_per_policy(void)
>         return cpufreq_driver->have_governor_per_policy;
>  }
>
> +/**
> + * Global definition of cpufreq_boost structure
> + */
> +struct cpufreq_boost *cpufreq_boost;

Probably just a 'static bool' here cpufreq_boost_enabled. Which takes
care of selection from sysfs.

>  static struct cpufreq_governor *__find_governor(const char *str_governor)
>  {
> @@ -761,6 +805,18 @@ static int cpufreq_add_dev_interface(unsigned int cpu,
>         if (cpufreq_set_drv_attr_files(policy, cpufreq_driver->attr))
>                 goto err_out_kobj_put;
>
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->boost) {
> +               if (sysfs_create_file(cpufreq_global_kobject,
> +                                     &(global_boost.attr)))

This will report error for systems where we have two policy structures.
As we are creating something already present.

> +                       pr_warn("could not register global boost sysfs file\n");
> +               else
> +                       pr_debug("registered global boost sysfs file\n");

Please make all your prints to print function name too:

pr_debug("%s: foo\n", __func__, foo);

> +               if (cpufreq_set_drv_attr_files(policy,
> +                                              cpufreq_driver->boost->attr))

Why is this required? Why do we want platforms to add some files
in sysfs?

>  /*********************************************************************
> + *               BOOST                                              *
> + *********************************************************************/
> +int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state)
> +{
> +       struct cpufreq_boost *boost;
> +       unsigned long flags;
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       if (!policy || !policy->boost || !policy->boost->low_level_boost)
> +               return -ENODEV;
> +
> +       boost = policy->boost;
> +       write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> +
> +       if (boost->status != state) {
> +               policy->boost->status = state;
> +               ret = boost->low_level_boost(policy, state);
> +               if (ret) {
> +                       pr_err("BOOST cannot %sable low level code (%d)\n",
> +                              state ? "en" : "dis", ret);
> +                       return ret;
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       write_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> +
> +       pr_debug("cpufreq BOOST %sabled\n", state ? "en" : "dis");
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * cpufreq_boost_notifier - notifier callback for cpufreq policy change.
> + *  <at> nb:   struct notifier_block * with callback info.
> + *  <at> event: value showing cpufreq event for which this function invoked.
> + *  <at> data: callback-specific data
> + */
> +static int cpufreq_boost_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
> +                                 unsigned long event, void *data)
> +{
> +       struct cpufreq_policy *policy = data;
> +
> +       if (event == CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE) {
> +               if (!policy || !policy->boost)
> +                       return -ENODEV;
> +
> +               if (policy->boost->status == CPUFREQ_BOOST_EN) {
> +                       pr_info("NOTIFIER BOOST: MAX: %d e:%lu cpu: %d\n",
> +                               policy->max, event, policy->cpu);
> +                       cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(policy, 0);
> +               }
> +       }
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/* Notifier for cpufreq policy change */
> +static struct notifier_block cpufreq_boost_notifier_block = {
> +       .notifier_call = cpufreq_boost_notifier,
> +};
> +
> +int cpufreq_boost_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> +       int ret = 0;
> +
> +       if (!policy)
> +               return -EINVAL;

Heh, policy can't be NULL here.

> +       if (!cpufreq_driver->boost) {
> +               pr_err("Boost mode not supported on this device\n");

Wow!! You want to screw everybody else's logs with this message.
Its not a crime if you don't have boost mode supported :)

Actually this routine must be called only if cpufreq_driver->boost
is valid.

> +               return -ENODEV;
> +       }
> +
> +       policy->boost = cpufreq_boost = cpufreq_driver->boost;

Why are we copying same pointer to policy->boost? Driver is
passing pointer to a single memory location, just save it globally.

> +       /* disable boost for newly created policy - as we e.g. change
> +          governor */
> +       policy->boost->status = CPUFREQ_BOOST_DIS;

Drivers supporting boost may want boost to be enabled by default,
maybe without any sysfs calls.

> +       /* register policy notifier */
> +       ret = cpufreq_register_notifier(&cpufreq_boost_notifier_block,
> +                                       CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               pr_err("CPUFREQ BOOST notifier not registered.\n");
> +               return ret;
> +       }
> +       /* add policy to policies list headed at struct cpufreq_boost */
> +       list_add_tail(&policy->boost_list, &cpufreq_boost->policies);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_boost_init);

Why do we need to maintain a list of boost here? notifiers? complex :(

> +/*********************************************************************
>   *               REGISTER / UNREGISTER CPUFREQ DRIVER                *
>   *********************************************************************/
>
> @@ -1954,6 +2106,10 @@ int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver)
>         pr_debug("unregistering driver %s\n", driver->name);
>
>         subsys_interface_unregister(&cpufreq_interface);
> +
> +       if (cpufreq_driver->boost)
> +               sysfs_remove_file(cpufreq_global_kobject, &(global_boost.attr));

You haven't removed this from policy. Memory leak.

>         unregister_hotcpu_notifier(&cpufreq_cpu_notifier);
>
>         write_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_driver_lock, flags);
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
> index d7a7966..0e95524 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c
> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
>   *
>   * Copyright (C) 2002 - 2003 Dominik Brodowski
>   *
> + * Copyright (C) 2013 Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> + *

You shouldn't add it unless you did some major work on this file. You aren't
maintaining this file in 2013.

> +static int cpufreq_frequency_table_skip_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> +                                             unsigned int index)
> +{
> +       if (index == CPUFREQ_BOOST)
> +               if (!policy->boost ||

This shouldn't be true. If index has got CPUFREQ_BOOST, then driver
has to support boost.

> +                   policy->boost->status == CPUFREQ_BOOST_DIS)
> +                       return 1;
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +unsigned int
> +cpufreq_frequency_table_boost_max(struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table)
> +{
> +       int index, boost_freq_max;
> +
> +       for (index = 0, boost_freq_max = 0;
> +               freq_table[index].frequency != CPUFREQ_TABLE_END; index++)
> +               if (freq_table[index].index == CPUFREQ_BOOST) {
> +                       if (freq_table[index].frequency > boost_freq_max)
> +                               boost_freq_max = freq_table[index].frequency;
> +               }
> +
> +       return boost_freq_max;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_frequency_table_boost_max);

why do we need this?

>  /*
>   * if you use these, you must assure that the frequency table is valid
>   * all the time between get_attr and put_attr!
> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> index 037d36a..1294c8c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
> @@ -88,6 +88,25 @@ struct cpufreq_real_policy {
>         struct cpufreq_governor *governor; /* see below */
>  };
>
> +#define CPUFREQ_BOOST_DIS            (0)
> +#define CPUFREQ_BOOST_EN             (1)

You don't need these.. Just create variable as bool and 0 & 1 would
be fine.

> +struct cpufreq_policy;
> +struct cpufreq_boost {
> +       unsigned int            max_boost_freq; /* maximum value of
> +                                                * boosted freq */
> +       unsigned int            max_normal_freq; /* non boost max freq */
> +       int                     status; /* status of boost */
> +
> +       /* boost sysfs attributies */
> +       struct freq_attr        **attr;
> +
> +       /* low-level trigger for boost */
> +       int (*low_level_boost) (struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state);
> +
> +       struct list_head        policies;
> +};

We don't need it. Just add two more fields to cpufreq_driver:
- have_boost_freqs and low_level_boost (maybe a better name.
What's its use?)

>  struct cpufreq_policy {
>         /* CPUs sharing clock, require sw coordination */
>         cpumask_var_t           cpus;   /* Online CPUs only */
> @@ -113,6 +132,9 @@ struct cpufreq_policy {
>
>         struct cpufreq_real_policy      user_policy;
>
> +       struct cpufreq_boost    *boost;
> +       struct list_head        boost_list;

We don't need both of these.

>         struct kobject          kobj;
>         struct completion       kobj_unregister;
>  };

> @@ -277,7 +302,6 @@ struct cpufreq_driver {
>  int cpufreq_register_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
>  int cpufreq_unregister_driver(struct cpufreq_driver *driver_data);
>
> -

??

>  void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>                 struct cpufreq_freqs *freqs, unsigned int state);
>
> @@ -403,6 +427,9 @@ extern struct cpufreq_governor cpufreq_gov_conservative;
>  #define CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID ~0
>  #define CPUFREQ_TABLE_END     ~1
>
> +/* Define index for boost frequency */
> +#define CPUFREQ_BOOST         ~2

s/CPUFREQ_BOOST/CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/