[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a3354ae8-f40f-83f2-d6eb-7f588af75e97@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 10:27:13 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: sudeep.holla@....com, cristian.marussi@....com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rjw@...ysocki.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq statistics retrieved by drivers
On 7/29/2020 8:12 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The existing CPUFreq framework does not tracks the statistics when the
> 'fast switch' is used or when firmware changes the frequency independently
> due to e.g. thermal reasons. However, the firmware might track the frequency
> changes and expose this to the kernel.
Or the firmware might have changed the CPU frequency in response to a
request from the secure world for instance.
>
> This patch set aims to introduce CPUfreq statistics gathered by firmware
> and retrieved by CPUFreq driver. It would require a new API functions
> in the CPUFreq, which allows to poke drivers to get these stats.
>From a debugging perspective, it would be helpful if the firmware
maintained statistics were exposed as a super-set of the Linux cpufreq
statistics and aggregated into them such that you could view the normal
world vs. secure world residency of a given frequency point. This would
help because a lot of times, Linux requests freq X, but the secure world
requires freq Y (with X >= Y) and people do not really understand why
the resulting power usage is higher for instance.
What are your thoughts on this?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists