linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] thermal: change "hysteresis" as optional property

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]

Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 11:57:53 +0000
From:	Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
To:	Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
Cc:	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
	Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
	kongxinwei <kong.kongxinwei@...ilicon.com>,
	Punit Agrawal <Punit.Agrawal@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] thermal: change "hysteresis" as optional property

On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 11:03:49AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> Hi Eduardo,
> 
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:29:44AM -0800, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > Hi Leo,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:43:43AM +0800, Leo Yan wrote:
> > > The property "hysteresis" is mandatory for trip points, so if without
> > > it the thermal zone cannot register successfully. But "hysteresis" is
> > > ignored in the thermal subsystem and only inquired by several thermal
> > > sensor drivers.
> > 
> > I am not sure this a good direction to go. Remember that Linux
> > implementation not necessarily has to be the implication of the DT
> > binding. Hysteresis is a property that plays a significant role on
> > thermal control systems, which in many cases avoid overshooting cooling
> > actions. Having the DT writer to explicitly set it to 0 means that zone
> > does not suffer of overshooting and does not need hysteresis.
> 
> After review current code, the "hysteresis" is used to calculate
> temperature falling threshold with a more conservative value; so that
> finally avoid overshooting issue.
> 
> Please confirm if is my understanding correct or not?
> 
> > If the Linux thermal subsystem has a problem with handling hysteresis, I
> > would rather fix Linux code than relaxing the DT binding. Or if you
> > still believe hysteresis is really optional, I would prefer to see a
> > better justification than "Linux ignores it".

I see it the other way round, Is hysteresis a property that, without
it, the thermal code can't configure itself so it fails to create the
trip point?  The current code goes "There is no hysteresis for this
property, I don't know how to set up this trip point!".  I think we
can do better than this.

> If we think about power allocator governor, PID's two parameters are
> also used to dismiss overshooting issue: one is k_po (proportional
> term), another is k_i (integral term). So that means after we apply
> power allocator governor, we don't need parameter "hysteresis" due PID
> algorithm can automatically dismiss potential errors.

I disagree.  We shouldn't base DT decisions based on only one
governor in linux.  Having said that, AFAICS all governors currently
ignore hysteresis.

Cheers,
Javi