cpufreq Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
@ 2004-01-11 21:12 Dominik Brodowski
  2004-01-12 15:46 ` Ducrot Bruno
  2004-01-28 22:43 ` Len Brown
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dominik Brodowski @ 2004-01-11 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: len.brown; +Cc: acpi-devel, cpufreq

[Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?]

The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has
two shortcomings:

- if increasing the CPU processing power as a thermal situation goes away,
  throttling states are decreased later than performance states. This is
  not wise -- it should be the opposite ordering of going "up".

- only if the ACPI CPUfreq driver is used, performance states are used.
  A generalized approach would offer passive cooling even if the ACPI
  P-States cpufreq driver cannot be used (faulty BIOS, FixedHW access, etc.)

The attached patch addresses these issues.

 drivers/acpi/processor.c |  182 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

diff -ruN linux-original/drivers/acpi/processor.c linux/drivers/acpi/processor.c
--- linux-original/drivers/acpi/processor.c	2004-01-11 20:51:17.000000000 +0100
+++ linux/drivers/acpi/processor.c	2004-01-11 21:39:43.000000000 +0100
@@ -1091,6 +1091,113 @@
 }
 
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
+
+/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it
+ * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and
+ * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for
+ * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver.
+ */
+
+static unsigned int cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[NR_CPUS];
+static unsigned int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init = 0;
+
+
+static int cpu_has_cpufreq(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+	struct cpufreq_policy policy;
+	if (!acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init)
+		return -ENODEV;
+	if (!cpufreq_get_policy(&policy, cpu))
+		return -ENODEV;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+
+static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_increase(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+	if (!cpu_has_cpufreq)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
+	if (cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] < 60) {
+		cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] += 20;
+		cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	return -ERANGE;
+}
+
+
+static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+	if (!cpu_has_cpufreq)
+		return -ENODEV;
+
+	if (cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] >= 20) {
+		cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] -= 20;
+		cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
+		return 0;
+	}
+
+	return -ERANGE;
+}
+
+
+static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier(
+	struct notifier_block *nb,
+	unsigned long event,
+	void *data)
+{
+	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = data;
+	unsigned long max_freq = 0;
+
+	if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST)
+		goto out;
+
+	max_freq = (policy->cpuinfo.max_freq * (100 - cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[policy->cpu])) / 100;
+
+	cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, 0, max_freq);
+
+ out:
+	return 0;
+}
+
+
+static struct notifier_block acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier_block = {
+	.notifier_call = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier,
+};
+
+
+static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init(void) {
+	int i;
+
+	for (i=0; i<NR_CPUS; i++)
+		cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[i] = 0;
+
+	i = cpufreq_register_notifier(&acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier_block, CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
+	if (!i)
+		acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init = 1;
+}
+
+static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_exit(void) {
+	if (acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init)
+		cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier_block, CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
+
+	acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init = 0;
+}
+
+#else /* ! CONFIG_CPU_FREQ */
+
+static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init(void) { return; }
+static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_exit(void) { return; }
+static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_increase(unsigned int cpu) { return -ENODEV; }
+static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(unsigned int cpu) { return -ENODEV; }
+
+
+#endif
+
+
 int
 acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit (
 	acpi_handle		handle,
@@ -1099,7 +1206,6 @@
 	int			result = 0;
 	struct acpi_processor	*pr = NULL;
 	struct acpi_device	*device = NULL;
-	int			px = 0;
 	int			tx = 0;
 
 	ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE("acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit");
@@ -1116,12 +1222,7 @@
 	if (!pr)
 		return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
 
-	if (!pr->flags.limit)
-		return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
-
 	/* Thermal limits are always relative to the current Px/Tx state. */
-	if (pr->flags.performance)
-		pr->limit.thermal.px = pr->performance->state;
 	if (pr->flags.throttling)
 		pr->limit.thermal.tx = pr->throttling.state;
 
@@ -1130,26 +1231,27 @@
 	 * performance state.
 	 */
 
-	px = pr->limit.thermal.px;
 	tx = pr->limit.thermal.tx;
 
 	switch (type) {
 
 	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_NONE:
-		px = 0;
+		do {
+			result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(pr->id);
+		} while (!result);
 		tx = 0;
 		break;
 
 	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_INCREMENT:
-		if (pr->flags.performance) {
-			if (px == (pr->performance->state_count - 1))
-				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
+		/* if going up: P-states first, T-states later */
+
+		result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_increase(pr->id);
+		if (!result)
+			goto end;
+		else if (result == -ERANGE)
+			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
 					"At maximum performance state\n"));
-			else {
-				px++;
-				goto end;
-			}
-		}
+
 		if (pr->flags.throttling) {
 			if (tx == (pr->throttling.state_count - 1))
 				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
@@ -1160,37 +1262,41 @@
 		break;
 
 	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_DECREMENT:
-		if (pr->flags.performance) {
-			if (px == pr->performance_platform_limit)
-				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
-					"At minimum performance state\n"));
-			else  {
-				px--;
-				goto end;
-			}
-		}
+		/* if going down: T-states first, P-states later */
+
 		if (pr->flags.throttling) {
 			if (tx == 0)
 				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
 					"At minimum throttling state\n"));
-			else
+			else {
 				tx--;
+				goto end;
+			}
 		}
+
+		result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(pr->id);
+		if (result == -ERANGE)
+			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
+					"At minimum performance state\n"));
+
 		break;
 	}
 
 end:
-	pr->limit.thermal.px = px;
-	pr->limit.thermal.tx = tx;
-
-	result = acpi_processor_apply_limit(pr);
-	if (result)
-		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_ERROR, 
-			"Unable to set thermal limit\n"));
+	if (pr->flags.throttling) {
+		pr->limit.thermal.px = 0;
+		pr->limit.thermal.tx = tx;
 
-	ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Thermal limit now (P%d:T%d)\n",
-		pr->limit.thermal.px,
-		pr->limit.thermal.tx));
+		result = acpi_processor_apply_limit(pr);
+		if (result)
+			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_ERROR, 
+					  "Unable to set thermal limit\n"));
+
+		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Thermal limit now (P%d:T%d)\n",
+				  pr->limit.thermal.px,
+				  pr->limit.thermal.tx));
+	} else
+		result = 0;
 
 	return_VALUE(result);
 }
@@ -1813,6 +1919,8 @@
 		return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
 	}
 
+	acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init();
+
 	return_VALUE(0);
 }
 
@@ -1822,6 +1930,8 @@
 {
 	ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE("acpi_processor_exit");
 
+	acpi_thermal_cpufreq_exit();
+
 	acpi_bus_unregister_driver(&acpi_processor_driver);
 
 	remove_proc_entry(ACPI_PROCESSOR_CLASS, acpi_root_dir);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-11 21:12 [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm Dominik Brodowski
@ 2004-01-12 15:46 ` Ducrot Bruno
  2004-01-12 17:39   ` Dominik Brodowski
  2004-01-28 22:43 ` Len Brown
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ducrot Bruno @ 2004-01-12 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: len.brown, acpi-devel, cpufreq

On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:12:55PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> [Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?]
> 
> The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has
> two shortcomings:

...

> +/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it
> + * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and
> + * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for
> + * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver.
> + */

Just a stupid question:

What is best if processor heat issues (apart turning on the fan)?

Reducing voltage of the processor, but still allowing it to run execution
at 100% (which is the case if the processor is heating), or reduce
amount of time allowed for the processor to execute?

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-12 15:46 ` Ducrot Bruno
@ 2004-01-12 17:39   ` Dominik Brodowski
  2004-01-12 19:11     ` Ducrot Bruno
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dominik Brodowski @ 2004-01-12 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ducrot Bruno; +Cc: acpi-devel, cpufreq


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1218 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:46:11PM +0100, Ducrot Bruno wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:12:55PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > [Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?]
> > 
> > The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has
> > two shortcomings:
> 
> ...
> 
> > +/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it
> > + * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and
> > + * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for
> > + * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver.
> > + */
> 
> Just a stupid question:
> 
> What is best if processor heat issues (apart turning on the fan)?
> 
> Reducing voltage of the processor, but still allowing it to run execution
> at 100% (which is the case if the processor is heating), or reduce
> amount of time allowed for the processor to execute?

voltage scaling. It offers a much better (quadratic) saving than clock
modulation (linear saving). Doing both [and you need to do it, as the CPU
won't run with fewer volts at the same frequency] gives you cubic savings.

	Dominik

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cpufreq mailing list
Cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpufreq

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-12 17:39   ` Dominik Brodowski
@ 2004-01-12 19:11     ` Ducrot Bruno
  2004-01-13  8:40       ` Dominik Brodowski
  2004-01-15 12:18       ` [ACPI] " Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ducrot Bruno @ 2004-01-12 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: len.brown, acpi-devel, cpufreq

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 06:39:22PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:46:11PM +0100, Ducrot Bruno wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 10:12:55PM +0100, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > > [Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?]
> > > 
> > > The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has
> > > two shortcomings:
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > +/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it
> > > + * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and
> > > + * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for
> > > + * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver.
> > > + */
> > 
> > Just a stupid question:
> > 
> > What is best if processor heat issues (apart turning on the fan)?
> > 
> > Reducing voltage of the processor, but still allowing it to run execution
> > at 100% (which is the case if the processor is heating), or reduce
> > amount of time allowed for the processor to execute?
> 
> voltage scaling. It offers a much better (quadratic) saving than clock
> modulation (linear saving). Doing both [and you need to do it, as the CPU
> won't run with fewer volts at the same frequency] gives you cubic savings.

Yes I know.  But does it offer more 'cooling'?


-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-12 19:11     ` Ducrot Bruno
@ 2004-01-13  8:40       ` Dominik Brodowski
  2004-01-15 12:18       ` [ACPI] " Pavel Machek
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Dominik Brodowski @ 2004-01-13  8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ducrot Bruno; +Cc: acpi-devel, cpufreq


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 08:11:22PM +0100, Ducrot Bruno wrote:
> Yes I know.  But does it offer more 'cooling'?

energy consumption == heat generation [approximately]

	Dominik

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Cpufreq mailing list
Cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpufreq

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-12 19:11     ` Ducrot Bruno
  2004-01-13  8:40       ` Dominik Brodowski
@ 2004-01-15 12:18       ` Pavel Machek
  2004-01-15 13:42         ` Ducrot Bruno
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2004-01-15 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ducrot Bruno; +Cc: acpi-devel, cpufreq

Hi!

> > > > [Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?]
> > > > 
> > > > The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has
> > > > two shortcomings:
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > +/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it
> > > > + * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and
> > > > + * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for
> > > > + * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver.
> > > > + */
> > > 
> > > Just a stupid question:
> > > 
> > > What is best if processor heat issues (apart turning on the fan)?
> > > 
> > > Reducing voltage of the processor, but still allowing it to run execution
> > > at 100% (which is the case if the processor is heating), or reduce
> > > amount of time allowed for the processor to execute?
> > 
> > voltage scaling. It offers a much better (quadratic) saving than clock
> > modulation (linear saving). Doing both [and you need to do it, as the CPU
> > won't run with fewer volts at the same frequency] gives you cubic savings.
> 
> Yes I know.  But does it offer more 'cooling'?

Of course.

If you eat less power, you create less heat. CPU is basically fancy
"turn-electricity-into-heat" device.

[Have you seen that "first use of PentiumPro in house appliances"
picture?]

									Pavel

-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-15 12:18       ` [ACPI] " Pavel Machek
@ 2004-01-15 13:42         ` Ducrot Bruno
  2004-01-15 22:34           ` Pavel Machek
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ducrot Bruno @ 2004-01-15 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: acpi-devel, cpufreq

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 01:18:33PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > > > [Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?]
> > > > > 
> > > > > The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has
> > > > > two shortcomings:
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > > +/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it
> > > > > + * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and
> > > > > + * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for
> > > > > + * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver.
> > > > > + */
> > > > 
> > > > Just a stupid question:
> > > > 
> > > > What is best if processor heat issues (apart turning on the fan)?
> > > > 
> > > > Reducing voltage of the processor, but still allowing it to run execution
> > > > at 100% (which is the case if the processor is heating), or reduce
> > > > amount of time allowed for the processor to execute?
> > > 
> > > voltage scaling. It offers a much better (quadratic) saving than clock
> > > modulation (linear saving). Doing both [and you need to do it, as the CPU
> > > won't run with fewer volts at the same frequency] gives you cubic savings.
> > 
> > Yes I know.  But does it offer more 'cooling'?
> 
> Of course.
> 
> If you eat less power, you create less heat. CPU is basically fancy
> "turn-electricity-into-heat" device.
> 

I don't like certitudes (I was wondering if better heat dissipation in
case of throttling even if more heat generation, but that not the case).

> [Have you seen that "first use of PentiumPro in house appliances"
> picture?]

No, but I do have seen some that have burnt in a production server,
some years ago...

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-15 13:42         ` Ducrot Bruno
@ 2004-01-15 22:34           ` Pavel Machek
  2004-01-16 11:24             ` Ducrot Bruno
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2004-01-15 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ducrot Bruno; +Cc: acpi-devel, cpufreq

Hi!

> > > > voltage scaling. It offers a much better (quadratic) saving than clock
> > > > modulation (linear saving). Doing both [and you need to do it, as the CPU
> > > > won't run with fewer volts at the same frequency] gives you cubic savings.
> > > 
> > > Yes I know.  But does it offer more 'cooling'?
> > 
> > Of course.
> > 
> > If you eat less power, you create less heat. CPU is basically fancy
> > "turn-electricity-into-heat" device.
> > 
> 
> I don't like certitudes (I was wondering if better heat dissipation
> in

Sorry.

> case of throttling even if more heat generation, but that not the
> case).

I guess throttling is way too fast (in kHz range, IIRC), so there
should not be any strange effects.

> > [Have you seen that "first use of PentiumPro in house appliances"
> > picture?]
> 
> No, but I do have seen some that have burnt in a production server,
> some years ago...

There was a picture of four-plate cooker, with PPro in the middle of
each plate.
								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-15 22:34           ` Pavel Machek
@ 2004-01-16 11:24             ` Ducrot Bruno
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ducrot Bruno @ 2004-01-16 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pavel Machek; +Cc: acpi-devel, cpufreq

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 11:34:25PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> I guess throttling is way too fast (in kHz range, IIRC), so there
> should not be any strange effects.

Agreed.

> 
> > > [Have you seen that "first use of PentiumPro in house appliances"
> > > picture?]
> > 
> > No, but I do have seen some that have burnt in a production server,
> > some years ago...
> 
> There was a picture of four-plate cooker, with PPro in the middle of
> each plate.

Can't work, unless you like carbon..

-- 
Ducrot Bruno

--  Which is worse:  ignorance or apathy?
--  Don't know.  Don't care.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm
  2004-01-11 21:12 [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm Dominik Brodowski
  2004-01-12 15:46 ` Ducrot Bruno
@ 2004-01-28 22:43 ` Len Brown
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Len Brown @ 2004-01-28 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dominik Brodowski; +Cc: ACPI Developers, cpufreq

Accepted into ACPI test tree
http://linux-acpi.bkbits.net/linux-acpi-test-2.6.0
http://linux-acpi.bkbits.net/linux-acpi-test-2.6.1
http://linux-acpi.bkbits.net/linux-acpi-test-2.6.2

This means it will be pulled into AKPM's mm tree on the next update.

thanks Dominik,
-Len

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 16:12, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> [Len, could you test and verify this patch, and push it to Linus, please?]
> 
> The current algorithm used by Linux ACPI for passive thermal management has
> two shortcomings:
> 
> - if increasing the CPU processing power as a thermal situation goes away,
>   throttling states are decreased later than performance states. This is
>   not wise -- it should be the opposite ordering of going "up".
> 
> - only if the ACPI CPUfreq driver is used, performance states are used.
>   A generalized approach would offer passive cooling even if the ACPI
>   P-States cpufreq driver cannot be used (faulty BIOS, FixedHW access, etc.)
> 
> The attached patch addresses these issues.
> 
>  drivers/acpi/processor.c |  182 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>  1 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> 
> diff -ruN linux-original/drivers/acpi/processor.c linux/drivers/acpi/processor.c
> --- linux-original/drivers/acpi/processor.c	2004-01-11 20:51:17.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux/drivers/acpi/processor.c	2004-01-11 21:39:43.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1091,6 +1091,113 @@
>  }
>  
> 
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> +
> +/* If a passive cooling situation is detected, primarily CPUfreq is used, as it
> + * offers (in most cases) voltage scaling in addition to frequency scaling, and
> + * thus a cubic (instead of linear) reduction of energy. Also, we allow for
> + * _any_ cpufreq driver and not only the acpi-cpufreq driver.
> + */
> +
> +static unsigned int cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[NR_CPUS];
> +static unsigned int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init = 0;
> +
> +
> +static int cpu_has_cpufreq(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	struct cpufreq_policy policy;
> +	if (!acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	if (!cpufreq_get_policy(&policy, cpu))
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_increase(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (!cpu_has_cpufreq)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	if (cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] < 60) {
> +		cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] += 20;
> +		cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	return -ERANGE;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	if (!cpu_has_cpufreq)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	if (cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] >= 20) {
> +		cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[cpu] -= 20;
> +		cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	return -ERANGE;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier(
> +	struct notifier_block *nb,
> +	unsigned long event,
> +	void *data)
> +{
> +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = data;
> +	unsigned long max_freq = 0;
> +
> +	if (event != CPUFREQ_ADJUST)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	max_freq = (policy->cpuinfo.max_freq * (100 - cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[policy->cpu])) / 100;
> +
> +	cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, 0, max_freq);
> +
> + out:
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static struct notifier_block acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier_block = {
> +	.notifier_call = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier,
> +};
> +
> +
> +static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init(void) {
> +	int i;
> +
> +	for (i=0; i<NR_CPUS; i++)
> +		cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg[i] = 0;
> +
> +	i = cpufreq_register_notifier(&acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier_block, CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
> +	if (!i)
> +		acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init = 1;
> +}
> +
> +static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_exit(void) {
> +	if (acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init)
> +		cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&acpi_thermal_cpufreq_notifier_block, CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
> +
> +	acpi_thermal_cpufreq_is_init = 0;
> +}
> +
> +#else /* ! CONFIG_CPU_FREQ */
> +
> +static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init(void) { return; }
> +static void acpi_thermal_cpufreq_exit(void) { return; }
> +static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_increase(unsigned int cpu) { return -ENODEV; }
> +static int acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(unsigned int cpu) { return -ENODEV; }
> +
> +
> +#endif
> +
> +
>  int
>  acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit (
>  	acpi_handle		handle,
> @@ -1099,7 +1206,6 @@
>  	int			result = 0;
>  	struct acpi_processor	*pr = NULL;
>  	struct acpi_device	*device = NULL;
> -	int			px = 0;
>  	int			tx = 0;
>  
>  	ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE("acpi_processor_set_thermal_limit");
> @@ -1116,12 +1222,7 @@
>  	if (!pr)
>  		return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
>  
> -	if (!pr->flags.limit)
> -		return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
> -
>  	/* Thermal limits are always relative to the current Px/Tx state. */
> -	if (pr->flags.performance)
> -		pr->limit.thermal.px = pr->performance->state;
>  	if (pr->flags.throttling)
>  		pr->limit.thermal.tx = pr->throttling.state;
>  
> @@ -1130,26 +1231,27 @@
>  	 * performance state.
>  	 */
>  
> -	px = pr->limit.thermal.px;
>  	tx = pr->limit.thermal.tx;
>  
>  	switch (type) {
>  
>  	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_NONE:
> -		px = 0;
> +		do {
> +			result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(pr->id);
> +		} while (!result);
>  		tx = 0;
>  		break;
>  
>  	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_INCREMENT:
> -		if (pr->flags.performance) {
> -			if (px == (pr->performance->state_count - 1))
> -				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
> +		/* if going up: P-states first, T-states later */
> +
> +		result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_increase(pr->id);
> +		if (!result)
> +			goto end;
> +		else if (result == -ERANGE)
> +			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
>  					"At maximum performance state\n"));
> -			else {
> -				px++;
> -				goto end;
> -			}
> -		}
> +
>  		if (pr->flags.throttling) {
>  			if (tx == (pr->throttling.state_count - 1))
>  				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
> @@ -1160,37 +1262,41 @@
>  		break;
>  
>  	case ACPI_PROCESSOR_LIMIT_DECREMENT:
> -		if (pr->flags.performance) {
> -			if (px == pr->performance_platform_limit)
> -				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
> -					"At minimum performance state\n"));
> -			else  {
> -				px--;
> -				goto end;
> -			}
> -		}
> +		/* if going down: T-states first, P-states later */
> +
>  		if (pr->flags.throttling) {
>  			if (tx == 0)
>  				ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
>  					"At minimum throttling state\n"));
> -			else
> +			else {
>  				tx--;
> +				goto end;
> +			}
>  		}
> +
> +		result = acpi_thermal_cpufreq_decrease(pr->id);
> +		if (result == -ERANGE)
> +			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, 
> +					"At minimum performance state\n"));
> +
>  		break;
>  	}
>  
>  end:
> -	pr->limit.thermal.px = px;
> -	pr->limit.thermal.tx = tx;
> -
> -	result = acpi_processor_apply_limit(pr);
> -	if (result)
> -		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_ERROR, 
> -			"Unable to set thermal limit\n"));
> +	if (pr->flags.throttling) {
> +		pr->limit.thermal.px = 0;
> +		pr->limit.thermal.tx = tx;
>  
> -	ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Thermal limit now (P%d:T%d)\n",
> -		pr->limit.thermal.px,
> -		pr->limit.thermal.tx));
> +		result = acpi_processor_apply_limit(pr);
> +		if (result)
> +			ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_ERROR, 
> +					  "Unable to set thermal limit\n"));
> +
> +		ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO, "Thermal limit now (P%d:T%d)\n",
> +				  pr->limit.thermal.px,
> +				  pr->limit.thermal.tx));
> +	} else
> +		result = 0;
>  
>  	return_VALUE(result);
>  }
> @@ -1813,6 +1919,8 @@
>  		return_VALUE(-ENODEV);
>  	}
>  
> +	acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init();
> +
>  	return_VALUE(0);
>  }
>  
> @@ -1822,6 +1930,8 @@
>  {
>  	ACPI_FUNCTION_TRACE("acpi_processor_exit");
>  
> +	acpi_thermal_cpufreq_exit();
> +
>  	acpi_bus_unregister_driver(&acpi_processor_driver);
>  
>  	remove_proc_entry(ACPI_PROCESSOR_CLASS, acpi_root_dir);

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-28 22:43 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-01-11 21:12 [PATCH 2.6] update passive cooling algorithm Dominik Brodowski
2004-01-12 15:46 ` Ducrot Bruno
2004-01-12 17:39   ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-01-12 19:11     ` Ducrot Bruno
2004-01-13  8:40       ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-01-15 12:18       ` [ACPI] " Pavel Machek
2004-01-15 13:42         ` Ducrot Bruno
2004-01-15 22:34           ` Pavel Machek
2004-01-16 11:24             ` Ducrot Bruno
2004-01-28 22:43 ` Len Brown

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox