linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] New thermal interface allowing IPA to get max power

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, 1 Feb 2021 15:21:30 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, cw00.choi@...sung.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        vireshk@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, Dietmar.Eggemann@....com,
        amitk@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, myungjoo.ham@...sung.com,
        kyungmin.park@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] New thermal interface allowing IPA to get max
 power


Hi Lukasz,

On 01/02/2021 12:23, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Daniel, Chanwoo
> 
> Gentle ping. Have you have a chance to check these patches?

I will review the patches in a couple of days

  -- Daniel


> On 1/26/21 10:39 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patch set tries to add the missing feature in the Intelligent Power
>> Allocation (IPA) governor which is: frequency limit set by user space.
>> User can set max allowed frequency for a given device which has impact on
>> max allowed power. In current design there is no mechanism to figure this
>> out. IPA must know the maximum allowed power for every device. It is then
>> used for proper power split and divvy-up. When the user limit for max
>> frequency is not know, IPA assumes it is the highest possible frequency.
>> It causes wrong power split across the devices.
>>
>> This new mechanism provides the max allowed frequency to the thermal
>> framework and then max allowed power to the IPA.
>> The implementation is done in this way because currently there is no way
>> to retrieve the limits from the PM QoS, without uncapping the local
>> thermal limit and reading the next value. It would be a heavy way of
>> doing these things, since it should be done every polling time (e.g.
>> 50ms).
>> Also, the value stored in PM QoS can be different than the real OPP
>> 'rate'
>> so still would need conversion into proper OPP for comparison with EM.
>> Furthermore, uncapping the device in thermal just to check the user freq
>> limit is not the safest way.
>> Thus, this simple implementation moves the calculation of the proper
>> frequency to the sysfs write code, since it's called less often. The
>> value
>> is then used as-is in the thermal framework without any hassle.
>>
>> As it's a RFC, it still misses the cpufreq sysfs implementation, but
>> would
>> be addressed if all agree.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lukasz Luba
>>
>> Lukasz Luba (3):
>>    PM /devfreq: add user frequency limits into devfreq struct
>>    thermal: devfreq_cooling: add new callback to get user limit for min
>>      state
>>    thermal: power_allocator: get proper max power limited by user
>>
>>   drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c             | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>   drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c     | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 17 +++++++++--
>>   include/linux/devfreq.h               |  4 +++
>>   include/linux/thermal.h               |  1 +
>>   5 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>


-- 
<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