Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:28:02 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] hwmon: (fam15h_power) Introduce a cpu accumulated power reporting algorithm |
| |
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:28:26AM +0800, Huang Rui wrote: > This patch introduces an algorithm that computes the average power by > reading a delta value of “core power accumulator” register during > measurement interval, and then dividing delta value by the length of > the time interval. > > User is able to use power1_average entry to measure the processor power > consumption and power1_average_interval entry to set the interval. > > A simple example: > > ray@hr-ub:~/tip$ sensors > fam15h_power-pci-00c4 > Adapter: PCI adapter > power1: 23.73 mW (avg = 634.63 mW, interval = 0.01 s) > (crit = 15.00 W) > > ...
I need to play with this more after I get back from KS. Just a partial review for now.
> > The result is current average processor power consumption in 10 > millisecond. The unit of the result is uWatt. > > Suggested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > Signed-off-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > --- > drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > index 6321f73..a5a539e 100644 > --- a/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c > @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@ > #include <linux/pci.h> > #include <linux/bitops.h> > #include <linux/cpumask.h> > +#include <linux/mutex.h> > +#include <linux/time.h> > +#include <linux/sched.h> > #include <asm/processor.h> > #include <asm/msr.h> > > @@ -64,6 +67,10 @@ struct fam15h_power_data { > u64 cu_acc_power[MAX_CUS]; > /* performance timestamp counter */ > u64 cpu_sw_pwr_ptsc[MAX_CUS]; > + /* online/offline status of current compute unit */ > + int cu_on[MAX_CUS]; > + unsigned long power_period; > + struct mutex acc_pwr_mutex; > }; > > static ssize_t show_power(struct device *dev, > @@ -132,11 +139,15 @@ static void do_read_registers_on_cu(void *_data) > cores_per_cu = amd_get_cores_per_cu(); > cu = cpu / cores_per_cu; > > + mutex_lock(&data->acc_pwr_mutex); > WARN_ON(rdmsrl_safe(MSR_F15H_CU_PWR_ACCUMULATOR, > &data->cu_acc_power[cu])); > > WARN_ON(rdmsrl_safe(MSR_F15H_PTSC, > &data->cpu_sw_pwr_ptsc[cu])); > + > + data->cu_on[cu] = 1; > + mutex_unlock(&data->acc_pwr_mutex); > } > > static int read_registers(struct fam15h_power_data *data) > @@ -148,6 +159,10 @@ static int read_registers(struct fam15h_power_data *data) > cores_per_cu = amd_get_cores_per_cu(); > cu_num = boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores / cores_per_cu; > > + mutex_lock(&data->acc_pwr_mutex); > + memset(data->cu_on, 0, sizeof(int) * MAX_CUS); > + mutex_unlock(&data->acc_pwr_mutex); > + > WARN_ON_ONCE(cu_num > MAX_CUS); > > ret = zalloc_cpumask_var(&mask, GFP_KERNEL); > @@ -184,18 +199,113 @@ static int read_registers(struct fam15h_power_data *data) > return 0; > } > > +static ssize_t acc_show_power(struct device *dev, > + struct device_attribute *attr, > + char *buf) > +{ > + struct fam15h_power_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev); > + u64 prev_cu_acc_power[MAX_CUS], prev_ptsc[MAX_CUS], > + jdelta[MAX_CUS]; > + u64 tdelta, avg_acc; > + int cu, cu_num, cores_per_cu, ret; > + signed long leftover; > + > + cores_per_cu = amd_get_cores_per_cu(); > + cu_num = boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores / cores_per_cu; > + > + ret = read_registers(data); > + if (ret) > + return 0; > + > + cu = 0; > + while(cu++ < cu_num) { > + prev_cu_acc_power[cu] = data->cu_acc_power[cu]; > + prev_ptsc[cu] = data->cpu_sw_pwr_ptsc[cu]; > + }
Please integrate checkpatch into your workflow of creating patches - it can be correct sometimes:
ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '(' #130: FILE: drivers/hwmon/fam15h_power.c:221: + while(cu++ < cu_num) {
> + > + leftover = schedule_timeout_interruptible( > + msecs_to_jiffies(data->power_period) > + );
This way of writing a function call is reaaally ugly. What's wrong with:
leftover = schedule_timeout_interruptible(msecs_to_jiffies(data->power_period));
?
And don't tell me 80 columns - that rule is not a hard one.
> + if (leftover) > + return 0; > +
...
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) --
| |