lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC V2 1/6] cpufreq: Replace "max_transition_latency" with "dynamic_switching"
Date
On Monday, July 17, 2017 05:28:51 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-07-17, 14:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2017 07:08:28 AM Dominik Brodowski wrote:
>
> > > Exactly. But lets take a quick look at the drivers ussing CPUFREQ_ETERNAL:
> > >
> > > Using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL, as policy-setting drivers:
> > >
> > > - intel_pstate.c - for the intel_pstate driver, which defers to the hardware
> > > to do frequency selection.
> > >
> > > - longrun.c - hardware-based frequency selection.
> >
> > That may or may not be hardware-based, but if the ->setpolicy callback is
> > present, transition_latency doesn't matter anyway.
>
> Right and to avoid confusion its probably better to avoid setting
> transition_latency completely from them. I will try to include that in
> my series.
>
> > > => Those drivers are not interested in kernel-based dynamic frequency
> > > selection anyway.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > >
> > > Using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL as a fallback if transition_latency is unknown:
> > > - arm_big_little.c
> > > - arm_big_little_dt.c
> > > - cpufreq-dt.c
> > > - imx6q-cpufreq.c
> > > - spear_cpufreq.c
> > >
> > > => As it seems to be an error case, it seems best to bail out on the
> > > safe side and disallow dynamic frequency scaling. Platform experts might
> > > know better, though.
> > >
> >
> > Well, Viresh should know what to do for some of them at least. :-)
>
> Yeah, they just don't know how much time it takes to change the
> frequency. We shouldn't disallow DVFS for them.
>
> > > Using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL unconditionally:
> > > - cpufreq-nforce2.c - over a decade old driver; has a commented-out hack
> > > to mdelay(10ms) after each frequency transition. This smells like it might
> > > be unsafe to do dynamic switching more often than that.
> > >
> > > - elanfreq.c - Has udelay(1ms+10ms) in transition path, so the same terms
> > > and conditions seem to apply.
> > >
> > > - gx-suspmod.c - works by a mechanism which reminds me of CPU frequency
> > > throttling, but chipset- and not CPU-based.
> > >
> > > - pmac32-cpufreq.c - for some models, it sets latency to ETERNAL. In some
> > > frequency switchign code, it has mdelay(10ms) calls.
> > >
> > > - speedsstep-smi.c - this case was discussed previously.
> > >
> > > => For those drivers, dynamic frequency scaling should not be enabled IMO.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> +1 and these are the drivers which should have this new variable set
> to avoid DVFS.
>
> Anyone who is setting CPUFREQ_ETERNAL unconditionally should be
> setting the new flag.
>
> > > To summarize: At first, I'd propose a *complete* switch-over from
> > > CPUFREQ_ETERNAL to setting the flag "no DVFS" you have proposed.
> >
> > So we seem to be in agreement over this.
>
> The usage of CPUFREQ_ETERNAL had been confusing over the years, i.e.
> some use it to not allow ondemand/conservative, while others use it as
> they don't know their transition latencies.

So if we can identify these, we can introduce something like
CPUFREQ_LATENCY_UNKNOWN for them and get rid of CPUFREQ_ETERNAL.

> A complete switch over may not be good for the later.
>
> I would suggest we only move the platforms which set latency to
> CPUFREQ_ETERNAL unconditionally to the "no DVFS" list. And everyone
> else can still continue with CPUFREQ_ETERNAL. I have earlier proposed
> finding their latencies dynamically and will try to include that for
> them.

I have to admint I'm not a super-fan of that (mostly because I tried to do
something similar in the past for genpd, but that didn't work out well IMO),
but as long as that is done in drivers and not in the core, I can live with it.

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-17 14:26    [W:0.047 / U:32.276 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site