Message-ID: <20150518202848.GT11598@ld-irv-0074>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 13:28:48 -0700
From:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To:	Mikko Perttunen <mikko.perttunen@...si.fi>
Cc:	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/15] thermal: thermal: Add support for hardware-tracked
 trip points

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:13:46PM +0300, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> On 05/18/2015 09:44 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 02:09:44PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> >>On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:06:50PM +0300, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> >>>One interesting thing I noticed was that at least the bang-bang
> >>>governor only acts if the temperature is properly smaller than (trip
> >>>temp - hysteresis). So perhaps we should specify the non-tripping
> >>>range as [low, high)? Or we could change bang-bang.
> >>
> >>I wonder how we can protect against such off-by-one errors anyway.
> >>Generally a hardware might operate on raw values rather than directly
> >>in temperature values in °C. This means a driver for this must have
> >>celsius_to_raw and raw_to_celsius conversion functions. Now it can
> >>happen that due to rounding errors celsius_to_raw(Tcrit) returns a raw
> >>value that when converted back to celsius is different from the
> >>original value in °C. This would mean the hardware triggers an interrupt
> >>for a trip point and the thermal core does not react because get_temp
> >>actually returns a different temperature than previously programmed as
> >>interrupt trigger. This way we would lose hot (or cold) events.
> >
> >This also highlights another fact: there's a race between interrupt
> >generation and temperature reading (->get_temp()). I would expect any
> >hardware interrupt thermal sensor would also have a latched temperature
> >reading to correspond with it, and there would be no guarantee that this
> >latched temperature will match the polled reading seen once you reach
> >thermal_zone_device_update(). So a hardware driver might report a
> >thermal update, but the temperature reported to the core won't
> >necessarily match what interrupt was meant for.
> 
> Does this actually matter? The thermal core will reset trips and
> apply cooling using the new - most recent - value. Using bang bang
> as example, if the temperature has risen since the interrupt fired,
> the cooling device will correctly not be switched off. If the
> temperature has fallen, it will again be correctly switched off. The
> only issue is then if the temperature is exactly 'trip temp - trip
> hyst' which will cause set_trips to load the trip points below, but
> not cause bang bang to turn off the cooling device, and the next
> chance it will have will only be at the next below trip point. Well,
> this is still safe (at least until you replace "cooling device" with
> "heating device"), so maybe it isn't that big of an issue.
> 
> Please point out if there's a problem with my line of reasoning.

I'm not sure I followed exactly the reason for the low-temp/hyst corner
case, but otherwise I guess that makes sense. The only problem IMO, is
that you're encouraging the generation of spurious notifications; if the
temperature is constantly changing right around 'trip temp', but it
never settles above 'trip temp' long enough for the core to re-capture
the high temperature scenario, you'll just keep making useless calls to
thermal_zone_device_update(). This kind of defeats the purpose of the
hysteresis, right?

I'd really rather have a high temperature interrupt generate exactly one
notification to the core framework, and that the sensor driver can rely
on that one interrupt being handled as a high temperature situation,
allowing it to disable the high-temp interrupt.

One of my biggest problems with the thermal subsystem so far is that
thermal_zone_device_update() doesn't actually seem to have any specific
semantic meaning. It just means that there was some reason to update
something. So then, you have to reason about a particular thermal
governor (bang bang) in order to make something sensible. If I want to
use a different sort of user-space governor, then I have to reevaluate
all these same assumptions, and it seems like I end up with a sub-par
solution.

As a side note: I have patches to extend some of the uevent information
passed by the user-space governor too, to accomplish what I'm suggesting
above. Perhaps that would be a better way to discuss what I'm thinking.

> FWIW - at least Tegra doesn't have a latched register like this.
> There's just a bit indicating that an interrupt was raised and a
> temperature register that updates according to the sensor's input
> clock.

A sensor for Broadcom's BCM7xxx has a latched register. If I get the
time, I'll post my driver soon.

Brian
--
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