[lkml]   [2017]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 00/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: improve interaction with cpufreq core
Hi Viresh,

I have checkout your branch at newest commit:
I have built it and run it on my Juno r2.
I have some python tests for IPA and I run one of them.

I seen a few issues so I have created a patch just
to be able to run IPA.
My next email will have the patch so you can see the changes.

IPA does not work with this patch set.
I have tested two source codes from your repo:
1. your change 908063832c268f8add94
2. your base 8f506e0faf4e2a4a0bde9f9b1

In case 1. IPA does not work - temperature rises to 83degC
in case 2. works - temperature is limited to 65degC.

On Monday I can allocate more time for it.


On 18/04/17 11:38, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-04-17, 10:34, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> Hey,
>> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:31:45AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>> The cpu_cooling driver is designed to use CPU frequency scaling to avoid
>>> high thermal states for a platform. But it wasn't glued really well with
>>> cpufreq core.
>>> This series tries to improve interactions between cpufreq core and
>>> cpu_cooling driver and does some fixes/cleanups to the cpu_cooling
>>> driver.
>> Can you please be more specific of what exactly is not gluing
>> properly/really well? I like refactoring, as long as well justified.
>> Do you see anything broken currently?
> It wasn't broken really but the same information is scattered around
> and it wasn't clear on which one is the best one refer. For example,
> clipped-cpus is copied from the policy structure, but the policy->cpus
> thing can get updated later on, while the clipped-cpus never got
> updated. It makes more sense to get rid of the copies we are keeping
> and reuse the real fields, i.e. use the cpufreq policy directly in
> cpu_cooling.
> And then it caused lots of cleanups as well..
>>> I have tested it on ARM 32 (exynos) and 64 bit (hikey) boards and have
>>> pushed them for 0-day build bot and kernel CI testing as well. We should
>>> know if something is broken with these.
>> Nice. What governors did you try? Have you checked "power_allocator" by
>> any chance?
> I tried setting all the governors including power_allocator on my
> exynos board, and didn't see anything broken. My branch also got
> tested by kernel CI bot for build and boot tests on a wide range of
> ARM boards and I didn't see any bad reports due to this set. So it
> should be okay.
>>> @Javi: It would be good if you can give them a test, specially because
>>> of your work on the "power" specific bits in the driver.
>> @Javi, are you still around? This needs to be validated in terms of how
>> the cdev states and power models are computed. Just to make sure we are
>> in one piece. Copying the ARM folks too, Punit?.
> And yes, I specifically wanted Javi (or some other ARM guy) to test
> this stuff out. Looks like Lukasz will help out now.
> Thanks to all of you :)

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-04-18 16:40    [W:0.098 / U:31.348 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site