linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] thermal: power allocator: change the '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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e72f7bf9-92ff-7b0d-4bf4-2f4030117e73@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:31:06 +0100
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, amitk@...nel.org,
        Dietmar.Eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] thermal: power allocator: change the 'k_i'
 coefficient estimation



On 10/9/20 2:05 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 18:04:25 (+0100), Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA) is built around the PID controller
>> concept. The initialization code tries to setup the environment based on
>> the information available in DT or estimate the value based on minimum
>> power reported by each of the cooling device. The estimation will have an
>> impact on the PID controller behaviour via the related 'k_po', 'k_pu',
>> 'k_i' coefficients and also on the power budget calculation.
>>
>> This change prevents the situation when 'k_i' is relatively big compared
>> to 'k_po' and 'k_pu' values. This might happen when the estimation for
>> 'sustainable_power' returned small value, thus 'k_po' and 'k_pu' are
>> small.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 8 ++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> index e566806f1550..aa35aa6c561c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
>> @@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ static void estimate_pid_constants(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
>>   	int ret;
>>   	int switch_on_temp;
>>   	u32 temperature_threshold;
>> +	s32 k_i;
>>   
>>   	ret = tz->ops->get_trip_temp(tz, trip_switch_on, &switch_on_temp);
>>   	if (ret)
>> @@ -157,8 +158,11 @@ static void estimate_pid_constants(struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
>>   		tz->tzp->k_pu = int_to_frac(2 * sustainable_power) /
>>   			temperature_threshold;
>>   
>> -	if (!tz->tzp->k_i || force)
>> -		tz->tzp->k_i = int_to_frac(10) / 1000;
>> +	if (!tz->tzp->k_i || force) {
>> +		k_i = tz->tzp->k_pu / 10;
>> +		tz->tzp->k_i = k_i > 0 ? k_i : 1;
>> +	}
> 
> I spent some time to understand how smaller or bigger values here impact
> the stability of the output and its closeness to the control temperature
> so I could give you and informed review :).
> 
> I did observed that if the k_i value has the same order of magnitude as
> k_p, the output oscillates more, so I do believe this is a good change
> to have.
> 
> What I also observed is that a small k_d value could be very beneficial
> in quicker stabilising the oscillation and saw that it's recommended to
> have for temperature, or in general for systems with measurement lag.
> 
> It's probably worth experimenting with some real systems first, but I
> wonder if setting k_d to 1 as well is a good default. The risk is that
> we will end up too conservative and not take advantage of some power
> budget that's actually still left on the table. In any case, this is a
> story for another time :).
> 
> For these changes:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>

Thank you for the review. I will add it to the v3, which I am going to
send soon.

Regards,
Lukasz

> 
> Regards,
> Ionela.
> 
>> +
>>   	/*
>>   	 * The default for k_d and integral_cutoff is 0, so we can
>>   	 * leave them as they are.
>> -- 
>> 2.17.1
>>
> 
> 
>