Move abstract code related to struct gov_attr_set to a separate (new)
file so it can be shared with (future) goverernors that won't share
more code with "ondemand" and "conservative".

No intentional functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

In addition to fields representing governor tunables, struct dbs_data
contains some fields needed for the management of objects of that
type.  As it turns out, that part of struct dbs_data may be shared
with (future) governors that won't use the common code used by
"ondemand" and "conservative", so move it to a separate struct type
and modify the code using struct dbs_data to follow.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

That mutex is only used by cpufreq_governor_dbs() and it doesn't
need to be exported to modules, so make it static and drop the
export incantation.

No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Move the definitions of struct od_dbs_tuners and struct cs_dbs_tuners
from the common governor header to the ondemand and conservative
governor code, respectively, as they don't need to be in the common
header any more.

No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

After previous changes there is only one piece of code in the
ondemand governor making references to per-CPU data structures,
but it can be easily modified to avoid doing that, so modify it
accordingly and move the definition of per-CPU data used by the
ondemand and conservative governors to the common code.  Next,
change that code to access the per-CPU data structures directly
rather than via a governor callback.

This causes the ->get_cpu_cdbs governor callback to become
unnecessary, so drop it along with the macro and function
definitions related to it.

Finally, drop the definitions of struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s and
struct cs_cpu_dbs_info_s that aren't necessary any more.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

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: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The ->store() callbacks of some tunable sysfs attributes of the
ondemand and conservative governors trigger immediate updates of
the CPU load information for all CPUs "governed" by the given
dbs_data by walking the cpu_dbs_info structures for all online
CPUs in the system and updating them.

This is questionable for two reasons.  First, it may lead to a lot of
extra overhead on a system with many CPUs if the given dbs_data is
only associated with a few of them.  Second, if governor tunables are
per-policy, the CPUs associated with the other sets of governor
tunables should not be updated.

To address this issue, use the observation that in all of the places
in question the update operation may be carried out in the same way
(because all of the tunables involved are now located in struct
dbs_data and readily available to the common code) and make the
code in those places invoke the same (new) helper function that
will carry out the update correctly.

That new function always checks the ignore_nice_load tunable value
and updates the CPUs' prev_cpu_nice data fields if that's set, which
wasn't done by the original code in store_io_is_busy(), but it
should have been done in there too.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The ->powersave_bias_init_cpu callback in struct od_ops is only used
in one place and that invocation may be replaced with a direct call
to the function pointed to by that callback, so change the code
accordingly and drop the callback.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

After some previous changes, the ->get_cpu_dbs_info_s governor
callback and the "governor" field in struct dbs_governor (whose
value represents the governor type) are not used any more, so
drop them.

Also drop the unused gov_ops field from struct dbs_governor.

No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

To avoid having to check the governor type explicitly in the common
code in order to initialize data structures specific to the governor
type properly, add a ->start callback to struct dbs_governor and
use it to initialize those data structures for the ondemand and
conservative governors.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The io_is_busy governor tunable is only used by the ondemand governor
and is located in the ondemand-specific data structure, but it is
looked at by the common governor code that has to do ugly things to
get to that value, so move it to struct dbs_data and modify ondemand
accordingly.

Since the conservative governor never touches that field, it will
be always 0 for that governor and it won't have any effect on the
results of computations in that case.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The ->freq_increase callback in struct od_ops is never invoked,
so drop it.

No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Do not convert microseconds to jiffies and the other way around
in governor computations related to the sampling rate and sample
delay and drop delay_for_sampling_rate() which isn't of any use
then.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The rate_mult field in struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s is used by the code
shared with the conservative governor and to access it that code
has to do an ugly governor type check.  However, first of all it
is ever only used for policy->cpu, so it is per-policy rather than
per-CPU and second, it is initialized to 1 by cpufreq_governor_start(),
so if the conservative governor never modifies it, it will have no
effect on the results of any computations.

For these reasons, move rate_mult to struct policy_dbs_info (as a
common field).
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The way the ->gov_check_cpu governor callback is used by the ondemand
and conservative governors is not really straightforward.  Namely, the
governor calls dbs_check_cpu() that updates the load information for
the policy and the invokes ->gov_check_cpu() for the governor.

To get rid of that entanglement, notice that cpufreq_governor_limits()
doesn't need to call dbs_check_cpu() directly.  Instead, it can simply
reset the sample delay to 0 which will cause a sample to be taken
immediately.  The result of that is practically equivalent to calling
dbs_check_cpu() except that it will trigger a full update of governor
internal state and not just the ->gov_check_cpu() part.

Following that observation, make cpufreq_governor_limits() reset
the sample delay and turn dbs_check_cpu() into a function that will
simply evaluate the load and return the result called dbs_update().

That function can now be called by governors from the routines that
previously were pointed to by ->gov_check_cpu and those routines
can be called directly by each governor instead of dbs_check_cpu().
This way ->gov_check_cpu becomes unnecessary, so drop it.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Rework the handling of work items by dbs_update_util_handler() and
dbs_work_handler() so the former (which is executed in scheduler
paths) only uses atomic operations when absolutely necessary.  That
is, when the policy is shared and dbs_update_util_handler() has
already decided that this is the time to queue up a work item.

In particular, this avoids the atomic ops entirely on platforms where
policy objects are never shared.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The ondemand governor already updates sample_delay_ns immediately on
updates to the sampling rate, but conservative doesn't do that.

It was left out earlier as the code was really too complex to get
that done easily.  Things are sorted out very well now, however, and
the conservative governor can be modified to follow ondemand in that
respect.

Moreover, since the code needed to implement that in the
conservative governor would be identical to the corresponding
ondemand governor's code, make that code common and change both
governors to use it.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Tested-by: NShilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ rjw: Changelog ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

We used to drop policy->rwsem just before calling __cpufreq_governor()
in some cases earlier and so it was possible that __cpufreq_governor()
ran concurrently via separate threads for the same policy.

In order to guarantee valid state transitions for governors,
'governor_enabled' was required to be protected using some locking
and cpufreq_governor_lock was added for that.

But now __cpufreq_governor() is always called under policy->rwsem,
and 'governor_enabled' is protected against races even without
cpufreq_governor_lock.

Get rid of the extra lock now.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Tested-by: NShilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ rjw : Changelog ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The dbs_data_mutex lock is currently used in two places.  First,
cpufreq_governor_dbs() uses it to guarantee mutual exclusion between
invocations of governor operations from the core.  Second, it is used by
ondemand governor's update_sampling_rate() to ensure the stability of
data structures walked by it.

The second usage is quite problematic, because update_sampling_rate() is
called from a governor sysfs attribute's ->store callback and that leads
to a deadlock scenario involving cpufreq_governor_exit() which runs
under dbs_data_mutex.  Thus it is better to rework the code so
update_sampling_rate() doesn't need to acquire dbs_data_mutex.

To that end, rework update_sampling_rate() to walk a list of policy_dbs
objects supported by the dbs_data one it has been called for (instead of
walking cpu_dbs_info object for all CPUs).  The list manipulation is
protected with dbs_data->mutex which also is held around the execution
of update_sampling_rate(), it is not necessary to hold dbs_data_mutex in
that function any more.
Reported-by: NJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Reported-by: NShilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
[ rjw: Subject & changelog ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The previous commit introduced a new set of macros for creating sysfs
attributes that represent governor tunables and the old macros used for
this purpose are not needed any more, so drop them.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Tested-by: NShilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ rjw: Subject & changelog ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The ondemand and conservative governors use the global-attr or freq-attr
structures to represent sysfs attributes corresponding to their tunables
(which of them is actually used depends on whether or not different
policy objects can use the same governor with different tunables at the
same time and, consequently, on where those attributes are located in
sysfs).

Unfortunately, in the freq-attr case, the standard cpufreq show/store
sysfs attribute callbacks are applied to the governor tunable attributes
and they always acquire the policy->rwsem lock before carrying out the
operation.  That may lead to an ABBA deadlock if governor tunable
attributes are removed under policy->rwsem while one of them is being
accessed concurrently (if sysfs attributes removal wins the race, it
will wait for the access to complete with policy->rwsem held while the
attribute callback will block on policy->rwsem indefinitely).

We attempted to address this issue by dropping policy->rwsem around
governor tunable attributes removal (that is, around invocations of the
->governor callback with the event arg equal to CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT)
in cpufreq_set_policy(), but that opened up race conditions that had not
been possible with policy->rwsem held all the time.  Therefore
policy->rwsem cannot be dropped in cpufreq_set_policy() at any point,
but the deadlock situation described above must be avoided too.

To that end, use the observation that in principle governor tunables may
be represented by the same data type regardless of whether the governor
is system-wide or per-policy and introduce a new structure, struct
governor_attr, for representing them and new corresponding macros for
creating show/store sysfs callbacks for them.  Also make their parent
kobject use a new kobject type whose default show/store callbacks are
not related to the standard core cpufreq ones in any way (and they don't
acquire policy->rwsem in particular).
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Tested-by: NShilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ rjw: Subject & changelog + rebase ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

There are a few common tunables shared between the ondemand and
conservative governors.  Move them to struct dbs_data to simplify
code.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Tested-by: NShilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ rjw: Changelog ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Some tunables are present in governor-specific structures, whereas one
(min_sampling_rate) is located directly in struct dbs_data.

There is a special macro for creating its sysfs attribute and the
show/store callbacks, but since more tunables are going to be moved
to struct dbs_data, a new generic macro for such cases will be useful,
so add it and use it for min_sampling_rate.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NJuri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Tested-by: NShilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ rjw: Subject & changelog ]
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

The skip_work field in struct policy_dbs_info technically is a
counter, so give it a new name to reflect that.

No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh 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: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Since policy->cpu is always passed as the second argument to
dbs_check_cpu(), it is not really necessary to pass it, because
the function can obtain that value via its first argument just fine.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The struct cpu_common_dbs_info structure represents the per-policy
part of the governor data (for the ondemand and conservative
governors), but its name doesn't reflect its purpose.

Rename it to struct policy_dbs_info and rename variables related to
it accordingly.

No functional changes.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh 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: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh 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 via
container_of(), the second argument of cpufreq_governor_init()
is not necessary.  Accordingly, cpufreq_governor_dbs() doesn't
need its second argument either and the ->governor callbacks
for both the ondemand and conservative governors may be set
to cpufreq_governor_dbs() directly.  Make that happen.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NSaravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Acked-by: NViresh 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: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

For the ondemand and conservative governors (generally, governors
that use the common code in cpufreq_governor.c), there are two static
data structures representing the governor, the struct governor
structure (the interface to the cpufreq core) and the struct
common_dbs_data one (the interface to the cpufreq_governor.c code).

There's no fundamental reason why those two structures have to be
separate.  Moreover, if the struct governor one is included into
struct common_dbs_data, it will be possible to reach the latter from
the policy via its policy->governor pointer, so it won't be necessary
to pass a separate pointer to it around.  For this reason, embed
struct governor in struct common_dbs_data.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NSaravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Every governor relying on the common code in cpufreq_governor.c
has to provide its own mutex in struct common_dbs_data.  However,
there actually is no need to have a separate mutex per governor
for this purpose, they may be using the same global mutex just
fine.  Accordingly, introduce a single common mutex for that and
drop the mutex field from struct common_dbs_data.

That at least will ensure that the mutex is always present and
initialized regardless of what the particular governors do.

Another benefit is that the common code does not need a pointer to
a governor-related structure to get to the mutex which sometimes
helps.

Finally, it makes the code generally easier to follow.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NSaravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

Instead of using a per-CPU deferrable timer for queuing up governor
work items, register a utilization update callback that will be
invoked from the scheduler on utilization changes.

The sampling rate is still the same as what was used for the
deferrable timers and the added irq_work overhead should be offset by
the eliminated timers overhead, so in theory the functional impact of
this patch should not be significant.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Tested-by: NGautham R. Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

It is possible to get rid of the timer_lock spinlock used by the
governor timer function for synchronization, but a couple of races
need to be avoided.

The first race is between multiple dbs_timer_handler() instances
that may be running in parallel with each other on different
CPUs.  Namely, one of them has to queue up the work item, but it
cannot be queued up more than once.  To achieve that,
atomic_inc_return() can be used on the skip_work field of
struct cpu_common_dbs_info.

The second race is between an already running dbs_timer_handler()
and gov_cancel_work().  In that case the dbs_timer_handler() might
not notice the skip_work incrementation in gov_cancel_work() and
it might queue up its work item after gov_cancel_work() had
returned (and that work item would corrupt skip_work going
forward).  To prevent that from happening, gov_cancel_work()
can be made wait for the timer function to complete (on all CPUs)
right after skip_work has been incremented.
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Acked-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

cpufreq governors evaluate load at sampling rate and based on that they
update frequency for a group of CPUs belonging to the same cpufreq
policy.

This is required to be done in a single thread for all policy->cpus, but
because we don't want to wakeup idle CPUs to do just that, we use
deferrable work for this. If we would have used a single delayed
deferrable work for the entire policy, there were chances that the CPU
required to run the handler can be in idle and we might end up not
changing the frequency for the entire group with load variations.

And so we were forced to keep per-cpu works, and only the one that
expires first need to do the real work and others are rescheduled for
next sampling time.

We have been using the more complex solution until now, where we used a
delayed deferrable work for this, which is a combination of a timer and
a work.

This could be made lightweight by keeping per-cpu deferred timers with a
single work item, which is scheduled by the first timer that expires.

This patch does just that and here are important changes:
- The timer handler will run in irq context and so we need to use a
  spin_lock instead of the timer_mutex. And so a separate timer_lock is
  created. This also makes the use of the mutex and lock quite clear, as
  we know what exactly they are protecting.
- A new field 'skip_work' is added to track when the timer handlers can
  queue a work. More comments present in code.
Suggested-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: NAshwin Chaugule <ashwin.chaugule@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Pass 'policy' as argument to ->gov_dbs_timer() instead of cdbs and
dbs_data.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Conservative governor has its own 'enable' field to check if
conservative governor is used for a CPU or not

This can be checked by policy->governor with 'cpufreq_gov_conservative'
and so this field can be dropped.

Because its not guaranteed that dbs_info->cdbs.shared will a valid
pointer for all CPUs (will be NULL for CPUs that don't use
ondemand/conservative governors), we can't use it anymore. Lets get
policy with cpufreq_cpu_get_raw() instead.
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Some part of cs_dbs_timer() and od_dbs_timer() is exactly same and is
unnecessarily duplicated.

Create the real work-handler in cpufreq_governor.c and put the common
code in this routine (dbs_timer()).

Shouldn't make any functional change.
Reviewed-and-tested-by: NPreeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Some information is common to all CPUs belonging to a policy, but are
kept on per-cpu basis. Lets keep that in another structure common to all
policy->cpus. That will make updates/reads to that less complex and less
error prone.

The memory for cpu_common_dbs_info is allocated/freed at INIT/EXIT, so
that it we don't reallocate it for STOP/START sequence. It will be also
be used (in next patch) while the governor is stopped and so must not be
freed that early.
Reviewed-and-tested-by: NPreeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

Just call it 'policy', cur_policy is unnecessarily long and doesn't
have any special meaning.
Reviewed-by: NPreeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NViresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>