linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 00/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: improve interaction with cpufreq core

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: <d7c42f4b-2247-0ba7-c199-01788fb1b959@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2017 08:23:45 +0100
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
Cc:     Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: improve interaction with
 cpufreq core

Hey,

I am sorry for delay, it was a holiday period for me.

On 17/04/17 18:51, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:34:34AM -0700, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:31:45AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> The cpu_cooling driver is designed to use CPU frequency scaling to avoid
>>> high thermal states for a platform. But it wasn't glued really well with
>>> cpufreq core.
>>>
>>> This series tries to improve interactions between cpufreq core and
>>> cpu_cooling driver and does some fixes/cleanups to the cpu_cooling
>>> driver.
>>
>>
>> Can you please be more specific of what exactly is not gluing
>> properly/really well? I like refactoring, as long as well justified.
>>
>> Do you see anything broken currently?
>>
>> Or is it more of a optimization in terms of data structures and how
>> things are computed?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I have tested it on ARM 32 (exynos) and 64 bit (hikey) boards and have
>>> pushed them for 0-day build bot and kernel CI testing as well. We should
>>> know if something is broken with these.
>>
>> Nice. What governors did you try? Have you checked "power_allocator" by
>> any chance?
>>
>>>
>>> @Javi: It would be good if you can give them a test, specially because
>>> of your work on the "power" specific bits in the driver.
>>>
>>
>>
>> @Javi, are you still around? This needs to be validated in terms of how
>> the cdev states and power models are computed. Just to make sure we are
>> in one piece. Copying the ARM folks too, Punit?.
>>
>> I will see if I have some time later this week to check if IPA is in one
>> piece after this series.
>
> Now adding the ARM folks for real.
>
> Lukasz, can you please give it a shot on this series to check if IPA is
> in one piece?
I will run it on my Juno board.
I don't know the changes yet, but I will go through them today.
>
>>
>>> Pushed here as well:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vireshk/pm.git thermal/cooling
>>>
>>> V1->V2:
>>> - Name cpufreq cooling dev as cpufreq_cdev everywhere (Eduardo).
>>
>> That was just very minor stuff. Overall, I do not see major issues, but
>> I want to spend some more time on this before acking on my side.

Regards,
Lukasz Luba