Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Elia Devito <eliadevito@gmail.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>,
        Mark Pearson <mpearson@lenovo.com>,
        "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@dell.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@infradead.org>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@linux.intel.com>,
        Benjamin Berg <bberg@redhat.com>,
        "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" 
        <platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation: Add documentation for new performance_profile sysfs class (Also Re: [PATCH 0/4] powercap/dtpm: Add the DTPM framework)
Date:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:26:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4600468.GXAFRqVoOG@pce>
In-Reply-To: <943531a7-74d6-7c7f-67bc-2645b3ba7b8a@redhat.com>
References: <20201006122024.14539-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <CAJZ5v0iWmmu5WV7cX7uNb61NMYQ7s0dnhg1K+T0x90b3sBfU9w@mail.gmail.com> <943531a7-74d6-7c7f-67bc-2645b3ba7b8a@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

In data venerd=EC 16 ottobre 2020 13:10:54 CEST, Hans de Goede ha scritto:
> <note folding the 2 threads we are having on this into one, adding every =
one
> from both threads to the Cc>
>=20
> Hi,
>=20
> On 10/14/20 5:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:06 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wro=
te:
> >> On 10/14/20 3:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> <snip>
>=20
> >>> First, a common place to register a DPTF system profile seems to be
> >>> needed and, as I said above, I wouldn't expect more than one such
> >>> thing to be present in the system at any given time, so it may be
> >>> registered along with the list of supported profiles and user space
> >>> will have to understand what they mean.
> >>=20
> >> Mostly Ack, I would still like to have an enum for DPTF system
> >> profiles in the kernel and have a single piece of code map that
> >> enum to profile names. This enum can then be extended as
> >> necessary, but I want to avoid having one driver use
> >> "Performance" and the other "performance" or one using
> >> "performance-balanced" and the other "balanced-performance", etc.
> >>=20
> >> With the goal being that new drivers use existing values from
> >> the enum as much as possible, but we extend it where necessary.
> >=20
> > IOW, just a table of known profile names with specific indices assigned=
 to
> > them.
> Yes.
>=20
> > This sounds reasonable.
> >=20
> >>> Second, irrespective of the above, it may be useful to have a
> >>> consistent way to pass performance-vs-power preference information
> >>> from user space to different parts of the kernel so as to allow them
> >>> to adjust their operation and this could be done with a system-wide
> >>> power profile attribute IMO.
> >>=20
> >> I agree, which is why I tried to tackle both things in one go,
> >> but as you said doing both in 1 API is probably not the best idea.
> >> So I believe we should park this second issue for now and revisit it
> >> when we find a need for it.
> >=20
> > Agreed.
> >=20
> >> Do you have any specific userspace API in mind for the
> >> DPTF system profile selection?
> >=20
> > Not really.
>=20
> So before /sys/power/profile was mentioned, but that seems more like
> a thing which should have a set of fixed possible values, iow that is
> out of scope for this discussion.
>=20
> Since we all seem to agree that this is something which we need
> specifically for DPTF profiles maybe just add:
>=20
> /sys/power/dptf_current_profile    (rw)
> /sys/power/dptf_available_profiles (ro)
>=20
> (which will only be visible if a dptf-profile handler
>  has been registered) ?
>=20
> Or more generic and thus better (in case other platforms
> later need something similar) I think, mirror the:
>=20
> /sys/bus/cpu/devices/cpu#/cpufreq/energy_performance_* bits
> for a system-wide energy-performance setting, so we get:
>=20
> /sys/power/energy_performance_preference
> /sys/power/energy_performance_available_preferences
>=20
> (again only visible when applicable) ?
>=20
> I personally like the second option best.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Hans

between the two, the second seems to me more appropriate.
Considering that the various profiles interact with thermal behaviors what =
do=20
you think of something like:

/sys/power/thermal_profile_available_profiles
/sys/power/thermal_profile_profile

Regards,
Elia