lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: driver model, duplicate names question
Hi,

I am assigned to do add a powercap class. There are several
technologies, which will allow to
add a power budget to an individual device. For example, you can set a
power budget to
a individual physical cpu package, each core and uncore devices, GPUs,
DRAM etc.

+The Power Capping framework organizes power capping devices under a tree structure.
+At the root level, each device is under some "controller", which is the enabler
+of technology. For example this can be "RAPL".
+Under each controllers, there are multiple power zones, which can be independently
+monitored and controlled.
+Each power zone can be organized as a tree with parent, children and siblings.
+Each power zone defines attributes to enable power monitoring and constraints.
+
+Example Sys-FS Interface
+
+/sys/class/power_cap/intel-rapl
+├── package-0
+│ ├── constraint-0
+│ │ ├── name
+│ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ └── time_window_us
+│ ├── constraint-1
+│ │ ├── name
+│ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ └── time_window_us
+│ ├── core
+│ │ ├── constraint-0
+│ │ │ ├── name
+│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ │ └── time_window_us
+│ │ ├── energy_uj
+│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj
+│ ├── dram
+│ │ ├── constraint-0
+│ │ │ ├── name
+│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ │ └── time_window_us
+│ │ ├── energy_uj
+│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj
+│ ├── energy_uj
+│ ├── max_energy_range_uj
+│ └── max_power_range_uw
+├── package-1
+│ ├── constraint-0
+│ │ ├── name
+│ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ └── time_window_us
+│ ├── constraint-1
+│ │ ├── name
+│ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ └── time_window_us
+│ ├── core
+│ │ ├── constraint-0
+│ │ │ ├── name
+│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ │ └── time_window_us
+│ │ ├── energy_uj
+│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj
+│ ├── dram
+│ │ ├── constraint-0
+│ │ │ ├── name
+│ │ │ ├── power_limit_uw
+│ │ │ └── time_window_us
+│ │ ├── energy_uj
+│ │ └── max_energy_range_uj
+│ ├── energy_uj
+│ ├── max_energy_range_uj
+│ └── max_power_range_uw
+├── power
+│ ├── async
+│ ├── autosuspend_delay_ms
+│ ├── control
+│ ├── runtime_active_kids
+│ ├── runtime_active_time
+│ ├── runtime_enabled
+│ ├── runtime_status
+│ ├── runtime_suspended_time
+│ └── runtime_usage
+├── subsystem -> ../../../../class/power_cap
+└── uevent
+
+For example, above powercap sys-fs tree represents RAPL(Running Average Power Limit)
+type controls available in the Intel® 64 and IA-32 Processor Architectures. Here
+under controller "intel-rapl" there are two CPU packages (package-0/1), which can
+provide power monitoring and controls. A RAPL controller provides control for each
+CPU package, so it can have one node for each package. In addition to providing
+monitoring and control at package level, each package is further divided into
+power zones (called domains in the RAPL specifications). Here zones represent controls
+for core and dram parts. These zones can be represented as children of package.
+Under RAPL framework there are two constraints, one for short term and one for long term,
+with two different time windows. These can be represented as two constraints, with
+different time windows, power limits and names.


Thanks,
Srinivas




On 07/16/2013 11:31 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:29:42AM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>> Thanks for the quick response. Here I am creating virtual devices using
>> device_register.
>> I have attached a simple test program, which will give error.
>>
>> This is my intention:
>>
>> $> cd /sys/class/test_class
>> $> ls
>> power_zone_cpu_package_0
>> power_zone_cpu_package_1
> Wait, you are mixing a class and a "real" bus up. This will fail as
> your devices all end up on the virtual "bus" with the same name, in the
> same location on the bus (look in /sys/devices/virtual/ for where they
> will end up at.
>
> That will fail, and rightly so.
>
> Try using this with the proper 'struct bus_type' and let me know if
> creating a device there with the same name will also fail.
>
> Oh crud, it will, because we can't create symlinks with the same bus
> type in the /sys/bus/BUSTYPE/devices/ directory.
>
> So, don't use the same name for a device on the same bus, that way
> causes confusion :)
>
> Let's get back to your original "problem", what again are you trying to
> solve? There should be a way to resolve this without having to deal
> with duplicate names, perhaps you just want an attribute group with a
> common name?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-16 21:21    [W:0.106 / U:6.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site