linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <117c6d30-0013-7222-dedb-57e65ba84d15@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:47:19 +0000
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        sudeep.holla@....com, rjw@...ysocki.net, vireshk@...nel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, nm@...com,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
        chris.redpath@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for
 cpu-perf-dependencies



On 11/17/20 10:11 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16-11-20, 11:33, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> On 11/9/20 6:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 06-11-20, 11:14, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>> I also had similar doubts, because if we make frequency requests
>>>> independently for each CPU, why not having N cooling devs, which
>>>> will set independently QoS max freq for them...
>>>>
>>>> What convinced me:
>>>> EAS and FIE would know the 'real' frequency of the cluster, IPA
>>>> can use it also and have only one cooling device per cluster.
>>>>
>>>> We would like to keep this old style 'one cooling device per cpuset'.
>>>> I don't have strong opinion and if it would appear that there are
>>>> some errors in freq estimation for cluster, then maybe it does make
>>>> more sense to have cdev per CPU...
>>>
>>> Let me rephrase my question. What is it that doesn't work _correctly_
>>> with cdev per cpufreq policy in your case? What doesn't work well if
>>> the thermal stuff keeps looking at only the related_cpus thing and not
>>> the cpu-perf-dependencies thing?
>>>
>>
>> We don't have a platform which would be this per-cpu freq request, yet.
>> Thus it's hard to answer your question. The EAS would work in 'old
>> style' - cluster mode. I don't know how IPA would work on such HW
>> and SW configuration. To figure this out I need a real platform.
> 
> Hmm, so who are going to be the users of this new stuff (dependent
> CPUs) ? I don't think cpufreq-cooling should be updated, unless there
> is a compelling reason to.

Fair enough. What if we come back with experiments results in future?
Currently we are trying to conduct experiments with Nicola on modified 
Juno firmware and kernel)

> 
> The other one in energy model ? Why does it need this information ?

The energy model needs this information, because it's used during the
sched domain re-build. The sched domain is then used in the EAS main
functions: feec() [1] and compute_energy() [2].
What EAS normally does is 'trying different options to put a task
on different CPUs and observe the potential energy costs'.
Example, we need the 'cluster' frequency, because when you put a task on
a CPU its freq might need to be set a bit higher. This would affect all
CPUs in the cluster not only one and we capture that energy cost. Then,
we try to put a task on other CPU in that cluster and if it appears to
be no need of rising freq for the whole cluster, then it wins.


> 
> Who else ?
> 

FIE..