linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2 3/4] PM: EM: Add em_dev_update_chip

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: <b4d1cb26-f49a-4f5e-9059-8bc87baba5e3@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:30:29 +0000
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, sboyd@...nel.org, nm@...com,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
 rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
 alim.akhtar@...sung.com, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2 3/4] PM: EM: Add em_dev_update_chip_binning()



On 3/28/24 07:21, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 27/03/2024 13:55, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 26/03/2024 21:32, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/26/24 10:09, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>> On 22/03/2024 12:08, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> +    return em_recalc_and_update(dev, pd, em_table);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(em_dev_update_chip_binning);
>>>>
>>>> In the previous version of 'chip-binning' you were using the new EM
>>>> interface em_dev_compute_costs() (1) which is now replaced by
>>>> em_recalc_and_update() -> em_compute_costs().
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231220110339.1065505-2-lukasz.luba@arm.com
>>>>
>>>> Which leaves (1) still unused.
>>>>
>>>> That was why my concern back then that we shouldn't introduce EM
>>>> interfaces without a user:
>>>>
>>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/8fc499cf-fca1-4465-bff7-a93dfd36f3c8@arm.com
>>>>
>>>> What happens now with em_dev_compute_costs()?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For now it's not used, but modules which will create new EMs
>>> with custom power values will use it. When such a module have
>>> e.g. 5 EMs for one PD and only switches on one of them, then
>>> this em_dev_compute_costs() will be used at setup for those
>>> 5 EMs. Later it won't be used.
>>> I don't wanted to combine the registration of new EM with
>>> the compute cost, because that will create overhead in the
>>> switching to new EM code path. Now we have only ~3us, which
>>> was the main goal.
>>>
>>> When our scmi-cpufreq get the support for EM update this
>>> compute cost will be used there.
>>
>> OK, I see. I checked the reloadable EM test module and
>> em_dev_compute_costs() is used there like you described it.
> 
> I had a second look and IMHO the layout is like this:
> 
> Internal (1) and external (2,3) 'reloadable EM' use cases:
> (EM alloc and free not depicted)
> 
> 1. Late CPUs booting (CPU capacity adjustment)
> 
>   e3f1164fc9ee  PM: EM: Support late CPUs booting and capacity adjustment
> 
>   schedule_delayed_work(&em_update_work, ...)
> 
>    em_update_workfn()
>     em_check_capacity_update()
>      em_adjust_new_capacity()
>       em_recalc_and_update()       <-- (i)
>        em_compute_costs()          <-- (ii)
>        em_dev_update_perf_domain() <-- external
> 
> 2. Reload EM from driver
> 
>   22ea02848c07  PM: EM: Add em_dev_compute_costs()
>   977230d5d503  PM: EM: Introduce em_dev_update_perf_domain() for EM
>                 updates
> 
>   em_dev_compute_costs()           <-- external
>    em_compute_costs()              <-- (ii)
>   em_dev_update_perf_domain()      <-- external
> 
> 3. Chip binning
> 
>   this patchset  PM: EM: Add em_dev_update_chip_binning()
> 
>   em_dev_update_chip_binning()     <-- external
>    em_recalc_and_update()          <-- (i)
>     em_compute_costs()             <-- (ii)
>     em_dev_update_perf_domain()    <-- external
> 
> 
> 
> 

Yes, that's correct.