[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jPJbL+Ume2q1d6aoZ-PgpY-jqVfPDnwS8KbezLcK5bgg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 15:25:09 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] thermal: gov_step_wise: Allow cooling level to be
reduced earlier
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 9:32 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/25/25 14:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> >
> > The current behavior of the Step-wise thermal governor is to increase
> > the cooling level one step at a time after trip point threshold passing
> > by thermal zone temperature until the temperature stops to rise and then
> > do nothing until it falls down below the (possibly new) trip point
> > threshold, at which point the cooling level is reduced straight to the
> > applicable minimum.
>
> Quite long single sentence to describe these stuff...
Yes, it is long. I'll try to rearrange it when applying.
> >
> > While this generally works, it is not in agreement with the throttling
> > logic description comment in step_wise_manage() any more after some
> > relatively recent changes, and in the case of passive cooling, it may
> > lead to undesirable performance oscillations between high and low
> > levels.
> >
> > For this reason, modify the governor's cooling device state selection
> > function, get_target_state(), to reduce cooling by one level even if
> > the temperature is still above the thermal zone threshold, but the
> > temperature has started to fall down. However, ensure that the cooling
> > level will remain above the applicable minimum in that case to pull
> > the zone temperature further down, possibly until it falls below the
> > trip threshold (which may now be equal to the low temperature of the
> > trip).
> >
> > Doing so should help higher performance to be restored earlier in some
> > cases which is desirable especially for passive trip points with
> > relatively high hysteresis values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/thermal/gov_step_wise.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/drivers/thermal/gov_step_wise.c
> > +++ b/drivers/thermal/gov_step_wise.c
> > @@ -20,7 +20,9 @@
> > * If the temperature is higher than a trip point,
> > * a. if the trend is THERMAL_TREND_RAISING, use higher cooling
> > * state for this trip point
> > - * b. if the trend is THERMAL_TREND_DROPPING, do nothing
> > + * b. if the trend is THERMAL_TREND_DROPPING, use a lower cooling state
> > + * for this trip point, but keep the cooling state above the applicable
> > + * minimum
> > * If the temperature is lower than a trip point,
> > * a. if the trend is THERMAL_TREND_RAISING, do nothing
> > * b. if the trend is THERMAL_TREND_DROPPING, use the minimum applicable
> > @@ -51,6 +53,17 @@
> > if (throttle) {
> > if (trend == THERMAL_TREND_RAISING)
> > return clamp(cur_state + 1, instance->lower, instance->upper);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the zone temperature is falling, the cooling level can
> > + * be reduced, but it should still be above the lower state of
> > + * the given thermal instance to pull the temperature further
> > + * down.
> > + */
> > + if (trend == THERMAL_TREND_DROPPING)
> > + return clamp(cur_state - 1,
> > + min(instance->lower + 1, instance->upper),
> > + instance->upper);
> > } else if (trend == THERMAL_TREND_DROPPING) {
> > if (cur_state <= instance->lower)
> > return THERMAL_NO_TARGET;
> >
> >
> >
>
> That make sense
>
> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists