linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] thermal: re-calculate k_po/k

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: <20160105163328.GB3163@e104805>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jan 2016 16:33:29 +0000
From:	Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] thermal: re-calculate k_po/k_pu when update
 sustainable power

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:22:26AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On 01/01/16 00:03, Leo Yan wrote:
> >Hi Eduardo,
> >
> >Thanks for review.
> >
> >On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 09:21:26AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> >>On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:38:40PM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> >>>k_po/k_pu are in essence ratio values compared with sustainable power.
> >>>So when update sustainable power, we can recalculate k_po/k_pu simply
> >>>with below formula:
> >>>
> >>>                sustainable_power(new)
> >>>     k_p(new) = ---------------------- * k_p(old)
> >>>                sustainable_power(old)
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
> >>>---
> >>>  drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 6 +++++-
> >>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>>diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> >>>index d9e525c..223f8df 100644
> >>>--- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> >>>+++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c
> >>>@@ -908,7 +908,7 @@ sustainable_power_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> >>>  			const char *buf, size_t count)
> >>>  {
> >>>  	struct thermal_zone_device *tz = to_thermal_zone(dev);
> >>>-	u32 sustainable_power;
> >>>+	u32 sustainable_power, old_val;
> >>>
> >>>  	if (!tz->tzp)
> >>>  		return -EIO;
> >>>@@ -916,8 +916,12 @@ sustainable_power_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *devattr,
> >>>  	if (kstrtou32(buf, 10, &sustainable_power))
> >>>  		return -EINVAL;
> >>>
> >>>+	old_val = tz->tzp->sustainable_power;
> >>>+
> >>>  	tz->tzp->sustainable_power = sustainable_power;
> >>>
> >>>+	tz->tzp->k_po = (tz->tzp->k_po * sustainable_power) / old_val;
> >>>+	tz->tzp->k_pu = (tz->tzp->k_pu * sustainable_power) / old_val;
> >>
> >>I believe this has to be done by the governor. These properties are
> >>power_allocator specific. thermal_core should not really care about
> >>them.
> >
> >Okay, I will try to update these properties in power_allocator.c.
> >Javi, do you think this is fine for you?
> 
> If sustainable power were to change frequently (perhaps on
> entry/exit of a fan inhibitor mode?) then we would accumulate
> rounding errors here...

Can you elaborate on the use case?  What is this fan inhibitor mode?
--
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/