linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 12:21:09 +0200
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     amitk@...nel.org, Dietmar.Eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: power allocator: change the 'k_i'
 coefficient estimation


Hi Lukasz,

On 02/10/2020 14:24, 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 5cb518d8f156..f69fafe486a5 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c
> @@ -131,6 +131,7 @@ 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)
> @@ -156,8 +157,11 @@ 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 do not understand the rational behind this change.

Do you have some values to share describing what would be the impact of
this change?

Depending on the thermal behavior of a board, these coefficients could
be very different, no ?



-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog