[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hYw1xj7a4eGvm=m6xbP9ptSWLEPN7Da4-bxZ3-00GP4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:43:43 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Jens Glathe <jens.glathe@...schoolsolutions.biz>, Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] thermal: gov_step_wise: Go straight to instance->lower
when mitigation is over
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 2:28 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
>
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Commit b6846826982b ("thermal: gov_step_wise: Restore passive polling
> management") attempted to fix a Step-Wise thermal governor issue
> introduced by commit 042a3d80f118 ("thermal: core: Move passive polling
> management to the core"), which caused the governor to leave cooling
> devices in high states, by partially revering that commit.
>
> However, this turns out to be insufficient on some systems due to
> interactions between the governor code restored by commit b6846826982b
> and the passive polling management in the thermal core.
>
> For this reason, revert commit b6846826982b and make the governor set
> the target cooling device state to the "lower" one as soon as the zone
> temperature falls below the threshold of the trip point corresponding
> to the given thermal instance, which means that thermal mitigation is
> not necessary any more.
>
> Before this change the "lower" cooling device state would be reached in
> steps through the passive polling mechanism which was questionable for
> three reasons: (1) cooling device were kept in high states when that was
> not necessary (and it could adversely impact performance), (2) it only
> worked for thermal zones with nonzero passive_delay_jiffies value, and
> (3) passive polling belongs to the core and should not be hijacked by
> governors for their internal purposes.
>
> Fixes: b6846826982b ("thermal: gov_step_wise: Restore passive polling management")
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/6759ce9f-281d-4fcd-bb4c-b784a1cc5f6e@oldschoolsolutions.biz
> Reported-by: Jens Glathe <jens.glathe@...schoolsolutions.biz>
> Tested-by: Jens Glathe <jens.glathe@...schoolsolutions.biz>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> ---
> drivers/thermal/gov_step_wise.c | 23 +++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/thermal/gov_step_wise.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/thermal/gov_step_wise.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/thermal/gov_step_wise.c
> @@ -55,7 +55,11 @@ static unsigned long get_target_state(st
> if (cur_state <= instance->lower)
> return THERMAL_NO_TARGET;
>
> - return clamp(cur_state - 1, instance->lower, instance->upper);
> + /*
> + * If 'throttle' is false, no mitigation is necessary, so
> + * request the lower state for this instance.
> + */
> + return instance->lower;
> }
>
> return instance->target;
> @@ -93,23 +97,6 @@ static void thermal_zone_trip_update(str
> if (instance->initialized && old_target == instance->target)
> continue;
>
> - if (trip->type == THERMAL_TRIP_PASSIVE) {
> - /*
> - * If the target state for this thermal instance
> - * changes from THERMAL_NO_TARGET to something else,
> - * ensure that the zone temperature will be updated
> - * (assuming enabled passive cooling) until it becomes
> - * THERMAL_NO_TARGET again, or the cooling device may
> - * not be reset to its initial state.
> - */
> - if (old_target == THERMAL_NO_TARGET &&
> - instance->target != THERMAL_NO_TARGET)
> - tz->passive++;
> - else if (old_target != THERMAL_NO_TARGET &&
> - instance->target == THERMAL_NO_TARGET)
> - tz->passive--;
> - }
> -
> instance->initialized = true;
>
> mutex_lock(&instance->cdev->lock);
>
If there is no feedback, I'm going to assume that this is fine with everybody.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists