Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2024 20:09:41 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 07/16] thermal: gov_power_allocator: Eliminate a redundant variable | From | Daniel Lezcano <> |
| |
On 23/04/2024 20:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 8:00 PM Daniel Lezcano > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On 23/04/2024 19:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:35 PM Daniel Lezcano >>> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/04/2024 18:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >>>>> >>>>> Notice that the passive field in struct thermal_zone_device is not >>>>> used by the Power Allocator governor itself and so the ordering of >>>>> its updates with respect to allow_maximum_power() or allocate_power() >>>>> does not matter. >>>>> >>>>> Accordingly, make power_allocator_manage() update that field right >>>>> before returning, which allows the current value of it to be passed >>>>> directly to allow_maximum_power() without using the additional update >>>>> variable that can be dropped. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> The step_wise and the power allocator are changing the tz->passive >>>> values, so telling the core to start and stop the passive mitigation timer. >>>> >>>> It looks strange that a plugin controls the core internal and not the >>>> opposite. >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if it would not make sense to have the following ops: >>>> >>>> .start >>>> .stop >>>> >>>> .start is called when the first trip point is crossed the way up >>>> .stop is called when the first trip point is crossed the way down >>>> >>>> - The core is responsible to start and stop the passive mitigation timer. >>>> >>>> - the governors do no longer us tz->passive >>>> >>>> The reset of the governor can happen at start or stop, as well as the >>>> device cooling states. >>> >>> I have a patch that simply increments tz->passive when a passive trip >>> point is passed on the way up and decrements it when a passive trip >>> point is crossed on the way down. It appears to work reasonably well. >> >> Does it make the governors getting ride of it ? Or at least not changing >> its value ? > > Not yet, but I'm going to update it this way. The governors should > not mess up with tz->passive IMV.
+1
-- <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
| |