[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 18:31:21 +0900
From: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
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,
I'll review this patchset until tomorrow.
Thanks.
Chanwoo Choi
On 2/1/21 8:23 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Daniel, Chanwoo
>
> Gentle ping. Have you have a chance to check these patches?
>
> 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(-)
>>
>
>
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
Powered by blists - more mailing lists