All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>,
	rjw@rjwysocki.net, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
	Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/cpu_cooling: remove local cooling state variable
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:04:05 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150801113405.GL899@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150731083003.2f47ca5f@radivoje-desk2>

On 31-07-15, 08:30, Radivoje Jovanovic wrote:
> I just looked over the notifier in the current upstream (my patch was
> made on our production kernel which is 3.14 and has old notifier
> implementation with notifier_device in place) and I see your point.

That's disappointing. You were expected to check if the same problem
exists in mainline.

> I agree with you that this patch is trivial for the current
> implementation since the notifier, as it is currently, will enforce
> cpu_cooling policy change at every CPUFREQ_ADJUST which would cause
> problems in our current implementation. In our implementation there is
> a cpufreq driver that will also change policies during CPUFREQ_ADJUST,
> once the request comes from the underlying FW so there would be a fight
> who gets there first since cpu_cooling will change the policy in
> CPUFREQ_ADJUST notifier_chain and the driver would do the same thing.
> It seems to me that better implementation of the cpu_cooling notifer
> would be to keep the flag and change the policy in CPUFREQ_ADJUST only
> when the change was requested by cpu_cooling, and update the current
> state of cpufreq_cooling_device during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY event.
> What do you think?

I think the way cpu-cooling is written today, is an *ugly* hack. We hack
the notifier to change policy->max and no one is notified for it.

That's crap.

I would rather get some help from cpufreq core on that. Which can
provide some APIs to take care of thermal considerations.

Okay, I push that to my todo list. Will keep you all posted.

-- 
viresh

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>,
	rjw@rjwysocki.net, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
	Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
	Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/cpu_cooling: remove local cooling state variable
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:04:05 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150801113405.GL899@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150731083003.2f47ca5f@radivoje-desk2>

On 31-07-15, 08:30, Radivoje Jovanovic wrote:
> I just looked over the notifier in the current upstream (my patch was
> made on our production kernel which is 3.14 and has old notifier
> implementation with notifier_device in place) and I see your point.

That's disappointing. You were expected to check if the same problem
exists in mainline.

> I agree with you that this patch is trivial for the current
> implementation since the notifier, as it is currently, will enforce
> cpu_cooling policy change at every CPUFREQ_ADJUST which would cause
> problems in our current implementation. In our implementation there is
> a cpufreq driver that will also change policies during CPUFREQ_ADJUST,
> once the request comes from the underlying FW so there would be a fight
> who gets there first since cpu_cooling will change the policy in
> CPUFREQ_ADJUST notifier_chain and the driver would do the same thing.
> It seems to me that better implementation of the cpu_cooling notifer
> would be to keep the flag and change the policy in CPUFREQ_ADJUST only
> when the change was requested by cpu_cooling, and update the current
> state of cpufreq_cooling_device during CPUFREQ_NOTIFY event.
> What do you think?

I think the way cpu-cooling is written today, is an *ugly* hack. We hack
the notifier to change policy->max and no one is notified for it.

That's crap.

I would rather get some help from cpufreq core on that. Which can
provide some APIs to take care of thermal considerations.

Okay, I push that to my todo list. Will keep you all posted.

-- 
viresh

  reply	other threads:[~2015-08-01 11:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-07-21 22:13 [PATCH] thermal/cpu_cooling: remove local cooling state variable Radivoje Jovanovic
2015-07-24 15:26 ` Punit Agrawal
2015-07-24 17:09   ` Radivoje Jovanovic
2015-07-29 16:46     ` Punit Agrawal
2015-07-29 17:00       ` Radivoje Jovanovic
2015-07-30  8:05       ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-30 20:21         ` Radivoje Jovanovic
2015-07-31  3:18           ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-31 15:30             ` Radivoje Jovanovic
2015-08-01 11:34               ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2015-08-01 11:34                 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03  3:13                 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-08-03 19:28                   ` Radivoje Jovanovic

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150801113405.GL899@linux \
    --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=edubezval@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=punit.agrawal@arm.com \
    --cc=radivoje.jovanovic@intel.com \
    --cc=radivoje.jovanovic@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.