[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150302174054.GB15351@e104805>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 17:40:54 +0000
From: Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
To: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Cc: "rui.zhang@...el.com" <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@....com>,
"lina.iyer@...aro.org" <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
"broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
"tixy@...aro.org" <tixy@...aro.org>,
Kapileshwar Singh <Kapileshwar.Singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Subject: The power allocator thermal governor
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:28:50PM +0000, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:17:18PM +0000, Javi Merino wrote:
> > *** BLURB HERE ***
> >
> > Hi linux-pm,
> >
> > Introduce the power allocator governor, a thermal governor that
> > allocates device power to control temperature. This series is based
> > on branch "linus" of Eduardo's linux-soc-thermal tree:
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/evalenti/linux-soc-thermal.git
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > - Address Eduardo's review
> > + Turn variable-size array in divvy_up_power() into a
> > devm_kcalloc() as suggested by Eduardo
> > + Remove #ifdeffery from thermal_core.c as suggested by Eduardo
> > - Bring back cpufreq's CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU notifier in order
> > to update the cpu device in cpu_cooling.c when cpufreq changes
> > the policy cpu.
>
>
> Can you please elaborate a bit more on the issue you saw to decide to
> bring this functionality back?
I explained it in patch 5 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: update the cpu
device when cpufreq updates the policy cpu"): When cpufreq changes the
policy cpu, the cpufreq cooling device needs to update the cached cpu
device accordingly.
> Can we keep the cpufreq changes as a separated thread? To me if the
> issue happens to power allocator, it also happens to the other
> governors.
The cached cpu device was introduced in patch 98ea0816118f ("thermal:
cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API") in your tree.
I'm posting it here because it only affects doesn't affect other
governors.
> I don't want to block power allocator due to the cpufreq
> changes.
You don't have to. It's the last two patches precisely for that. You
can merge everything up to patch 3 without depending on cpufreq
changes.
> Besides, cpufreq changes should go via the proper cpufreq tree, not the
> thermal tree.
It's a change to cpu_cooling (patch 5) that needs a revert of cpufreq
(patch 4). The change to cpu_cooling depends on the patches already
in your branch. So you will have to carry this patch in your branch
with an Ack from the cpufreq maintainers.
Cheers,
Javi
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists