linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

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:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 18:38:41 +0000
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-imx@....com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com, Chris.Redpath@....com,
        ionela.voinescu@....com, javi.merino@....com,
        cw00.choi@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        sudeep.holla@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, nm@...com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, amit.kucheria@...durent.com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, khilman@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
        matthias.bgg@...il.com, steven.price@....com,
        tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com,
        airlied@...ux.ie, daniel@...ll.ch, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model



On 1/20/20 6:27 PM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 20/01/2020 16:09, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> Hey Lukasz,
>>
>> On Monday 20 Jan 2020 at 14:52:07 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>> On 1/17/20 10:54 AM, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>>> Suggested alternative: have two registration functions like so:
>>>>
>>>> 	int em_register_dev_pd(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
>>>> 			       struct em_data_callback *cb);
>>>> 	int em_register_cpu_pd(cpumask_t *span, unsigned int nr_states,
>>>> 			       struct em_data_callback *cb);
>>>
>>> Interesting, in the internal review Dietmar asked me to remove these two
>>> functions. I had the same idea, which would simplify a bit the
>>> registration and it does not need to check the dev->bus if it is CPU.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, we would need also two function in drivers/opp/of.c:
>>> dev_pm_opp_of_register_cpu_em(policy->cpus);
>>> and
>>> dev_pm_opp_of_register_dev_em(dev);
>>>
>>> Thus, I have created only one registration function, which you can see
>>> in this patch set.
>>
>> Right, I can see how having a unified API would be appealing, but the
>> OPP dependency is a nono, so we'll need to work around one way or
>> another.
>>
>> FWIW, I don't think having separate APIs for CPUs and other devices is
>> that bad given that we already have entirely different frameworks to
>> drive their respective frequencies. And the _cpu variants are basically
>> just wrappers around the _dev ones, so not too bad either IMO :).
> 
> It's true that we need the policy->cpus cpumask only for cpu devices and
> we have it available when we call em_register_perf_domain()
> [scmi-cpufreq.c driver] or the OPP wrapper dev_pm_opp_of_register_em()
> [e.g. cpufreq-dt.c driver].
> 
> And we shouldn't make EM code dependent on OPP.
> 
> But can't we add 'struct cpumask *mask' as an additional argument to
> both which can be set to NULL for (devfreq) devices?
> 
> We can check in em_register_perf_domain() that we got a valid cpumask
> for a cpu device and ignore it for (devfreq) devices.
> 

I think we could avoid this additional argument 'cpumask'. I have
checked the cpufreq_cpu_get function, which should do be good for this:

---------->8-------------------------
static int _get_sharing_cpus(struct device *cpu_dev, struct cpumask *span)
{
         struct cpufreq_policy *policy;

         policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu_dev->id);
         if (policy) {
                 cpumask_copy(span, policy->cpus);
                 cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
                 return 0;
         } else {
                 return -EINVAL;
         }
}
--------------------------8<-------------------------------

It would be a replacement for:
ret = dev_pm_opp_get_sharing_cpus(dev, span);

Regards,
Lukasz