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;
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] New thermal interface allowing IPA to get max
 power
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, cw00.choi@samsung.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        vireshk@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com,
        amitk@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com, myungjoo.ham@samsung.com,
        kyungmin.park@samsung.com
References: <20210126104001.20361-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <5751adfa-6e25-3f3c-4a60-9b3c739fec1f@arm.com>
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <de40eb55-8309-e9a5-68da-eab936cd0580@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 15:21:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5751adfa-6e25-3f3c-4a60-9b3c739fec1f@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


Hi Lukasz,

On 01/02/2021 12:23, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> Daniel, Chanwoo
> 
> Gentle ping. Have you have a chance to check these patches?

I will review the patches in a couple of days

  -- Daniel


> On 1/26/21 10:39 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patch set tries to add the missing feature in the Intelligent Power
>> Allocation (IPA) governor which is: frequency limit set by user space.
>> User can set max allowed frequency for a given device which has impact on
>> max allowed power. In current design there is no mechanism to figure this
>> out. IPA must know the maximum allowed power for every device. It is then
>> used for proper power split and divvy-up. When the user limit for max
>> frequency is not know, IPA assumes it is the highest possible frequency.
>> It causes wrong power split across the devices.
>>
>> This new mechanism provides the max allowed frequency to the thermal
>> framework and then max allowed power to the IPA.
>> The implementation is done in this way because currently there is no way
>> to retrieve the limits from the PM QoS, without uncapping the local
>> thermal limit and reading the next value. It would be a heavy way of
>> doing these things, since it should be done every polling time (e.g.
>> 50ms).
>> Also, the value stored in PM QoS can be different than the real OPP
>> 'rate'
>> so still would need conversion into proper OPP for comparison with EM.
>> Furthermore, uncapping the device in thermal just to check the user freq
>> limit is not the safest way.
>> Thus, this simple implementation moves the calculation of the proper
>> frequency to the sysfs write code, since it's called less often. The
>> value
>> is then used as-is in the thermal framework without any hassle.
>>
>> As it's a RFC, it still misses the cpufreq sysfs implementation, but
>> would
>> be addressed if all agree.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lukasz Luba
>>
>> Lukasz Luba (3):
>>    PM /devfreq: add user frequency limits into devfreq struct
>>    thermal: devfreq_cooling: add new callback to get user limit for min
>>      state
>>    thermal: power_allocator: get proper max power limited by user
>>
>>   drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c             | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>   drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c     | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>   drivers/thermal/gov_power_allocator.c | 17 +++++++++--
>>   include/linux/devfreq.h               |  4 +++
>>   include/linux/thermal.h               |  1 +
>>   5 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>


-- 
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog