linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal:core: Handle trips focused on current trip point only.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <519AECBD.9060202@samsung.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 May 2013 12:40:45 +0900
From:	jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com
To:	"Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>,
	Amit Dinel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...aro.org>,
	MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal:core: Handle trips focused on current trip
 point only.

On 2013년 05월 21일 01:00, Zhang, Rui wrote:

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonghwa Lee [mailto:jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 5:51 PM
>> To: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Zhang, Rui; Eduardo Valentin; Amit
>> Dinel Kachhap; Jonghwa Lee; MyungJoo Ham
>> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Thermal:core: Handle trips focused on current trip
>> point only.
>> Importance: High
>>
>> When thermal zone device is updated, it doesn't need to check every
>> trip points and its handling mathod even current temperature doesn't
>> exceed the trip's temperature. To modify those dissipatve mechanism,
>> this patch introduces the way to get current thermal trip point to call
>> only correspond trip point handling.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jonghwa Lee <jonghwa3.lee@...sung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
> 
> NAK.
> 
>> ---
>>  drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c |   28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
>> b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c index ce4384a..1cc4825 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
>> @@ -333,14 +333,6 @@ static void handle_non_critical_trips(struct
>> thermal_zone_device *tz,  static void handle_critical_trips(struct
>> thermal_zone_device *tz,
>>  				int trip, enum thermal_trip_type trip_type)  {
>> -	long trip_temp;
>> -
>> -	tz->ops->get_trip_temp(tz, trip, &trip_temp);
>> -
>> -	/* If we have not crossed the trip_temp, we do not care. */
>> -	if (tz->temperature < trip_temp)
>> -		return;
>> -
>>  	if (tz->ops->notify)
>>  		tz->ops->notify(tz, trip, trip_type);
>>
>> @@ -437,14 +429,28 @@ static void update_temperature(struct
>> thermal_zone_device *tz)
>>  	mutex_unlock(&tz->lock);
>>  }
>>
>> +static int thermal_zone_get_current_trip(struct thermal_zone_device
>> +*tz) {
>> +	int trip;
>> +	long trip_temp;
>> +
>> +	for (trip = tz->trips - 1; trip > 0; trip--) {
>> +		tz->ops->get_trip_temp(tz, trip, &trip_temp);
>> +		if (tz->temperature > trip_temp)
>> +			continue;
>> +	}
>> +	return trip;
>> +}
>> +
>>  void thermal_zone_device_update(struct thermal_zone_device *tz)  {
>> -	int count;
>> +	int trip;
>>
>>  	update_temperature(tz);
>>
>> -	for (count = 0; count < tz->trips; count++)
>> -		handle_thermal_trip(tz, count);
>> +	trip = thermal_zone_get_current_trip(tz);
>> +
>> +	handle_thermal_trip(tz, trip);
> 
> Say, trip point 1 for thermal zone 0 is 60C,
> The system is running above 60C for somethime,
> thus the thermal_instance for this trip point is running at upper_limit.
> When the temperature suddenly drops below 60C,
> we still need to handle trip point 1 to deactivate it.
> 


Okay, I understood. I missed the point that governor will handle a cooling
device within certain trip point described in thermal instance.
But still I don't think this is the best behaviour. Let say we were in trip
level 2nd and moving to trip level 1st then we should call governor twice for
applying trip 1 level. Why don't we just call once? And whenever we call
handle_thermal_trip() with all trips, monitor_thermal_work() will also be called
at the same time. I think we can make this work more clearly and intuitively.
let me think of it more,,,

Thanks,
Jonghwa.

> Thanks,
> rui
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thermal_zone_device_update);
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
> 
> 


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