linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: setup cpu thermal with idle on high temperatures

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]

Message-ID: <66754bb1-44cf-4f22-af7b-450d4fede20a@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:18:50 +0100
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@....qualcomm.com>
To: neil.armstrong@...aro.org, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: setup cpu thermal with idle
 on high temperatures

On 8.01.2025 10:15 AM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 08/01/2025 04:11, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 09:13:18AM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 07/01/2025 00:39, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 03:38:26PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> On the SM8650, the dynamic clock and voltage scaling (DCVS) is done in an
>>>>> hardware controlled loop using the LMH and EPSS blocks with constraints and
>>>>> OPPs programmed in the board firmware.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the Hardware does a better job at maintaining the CPUs temperature
>>>>> in an acceptable range by taking in account more parameters like the die
>>>>> characteristics or other factory fused values, it makes no sense to try
>>>>> and reproduce a similar set of constraints with the Linux cpufreq thermal
>>>>> core.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, the tsens IP is responsible for monitoring the temperature
>>>>> across the SoC and the current settings will heavily trigger the tsens
>>>>> UP/LOW interrupts if the CPU temperatures reaches the hardware thermal
>>>>> constraints which are currently defined in the DT. And since the CPUs
>>>>> are not hooked in the thermal trip points, the potential interrupts and
>>>>> calculations are a waste of system resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, set higher temperatures in the CPU trip points, and hook some CPU
>>>>> idle injector with a 100% duty cycle at the highest trip point in the case
>>>>> the hardware DCVS cannot handle the temperature surge, and try our best to
>>>>> avoid reaching the critical temperature trip point which should trigger an
>>>>> inevitable thermal shutdown.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you able to hit these higher temperatures? Do you have some test
>>>> case where the idle-injection shows to be successful in blocking us from
>>>> reaching the critical temp?
>>>
>>> No, I've been able to test idle-injection and observed a noticeable effect
>>> but I had to set lower trip, do you know how I can easily "block" LMH/EPSS from
>>> scaling down and let the temp go higher ?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know how to override that configuration.

I'll try to get some answers. SDM845 seems to expose a couple SCM calls for
this purpose and it's already wired up in drivers/thermal/qcom/lmh.c

>>>> E.g. in X13s (SC8280XP) we opted for relying on LMH/EPSS and define only
>>>> the critical trip for when the hardware fails us.
>>>
>>> It's the goal here aswell
>>>
>>
>> How about simplifying the patch by removing the idle-injection step and
>> just rely on LMH/EPSS and the "critical" trip (at least until someone
>> can prove that there's value in the extra mitigation)?
> 
> OK, but I see value in this idle injection mitigation in that case LMH/EPSS
> fails, the only factor in control of HLOS is by stopping scheduling tasks
> since frequency won't be able to scale anymore.

If LMH fails, your SoC is probably cooked already, anyway :(

I'm not sure why idle injection isn't enabled by default if no other cooling
methods are found. Perhaps that could be discussed with some thermal folks..

> Anyway, I agree it can be added later on, so should I drop the 2 trip points
> and only leave the critical one ?

I think sticking with critical=Tjmax + critical-action = "reboot" may be the
way to go here.

We may want to give some folks a heads up, so they can wire up skin sensors
on their devices ahead of these changes landing tree-wide.

Konrad