Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PM / EM: add devices to Energy Model | From | Lukasz Luba <> | Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:25:11 +0000 |
| |
On 2/13/20 10:59 AM, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 06/02/2020 14:46, lukasz.luba@arm.com wrote: >> From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> > > [..] > >> @@ -26,7 +28,7 @@ framework, and interested clients reading the data from it:: > > s/::/: ? > >> | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | >> +---------------+ +-----------------+ +---------------+ >> | | em_pd_energy() | >> - | | em_cpu_get() | >> + | em_get_pd() | em_cpu_get() | >> +---------+ | +---------+ > > em_get_pd() and em_cpu_get()? Why not em_pd_get()? em_cpu_get() is a > specific em_get_pd(). right?
Yes. I will rename 'em_get_pd' to 'em_pd_get'
> > [...] > >> @@ -85,13 +89,20 @@ API. >> 2.3 Accessing performance domains >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> +There is two API functions which provide the access to the energy model: >> +em_cpu_get() which takes CPU id as an argument and em_get_pd() with device >> +pointer as an argument. It depends on the subsystem which interface it is >> +going to use, but in case of CPU devices both functions return the same >> +performance domain. > > There is probably a reason why we need this specific function for CPU > devices? The reason should be described. People might ask why > em_get_pd() is not sufficient.
True, good point. I will extend the comment in em_cpu_get().
> > [...] > >> - * A "performance domain" represents a group of CPUs whose performance is >> - * scaled together. All CPUs of a performance domain must have the same >> - * micro-architecture. Performance domains often have a 1-to-1 mapping with >> - * CPUFreq policies. >> + * In case of CPU device, a "performance domain" represents a group of CPUs >> + * whose performance is scaled together. All CPUs of a performance domain >> + * must have the same micro-architecture. Performance domains often have >> + * a 1-to-1 mapping with CPUFreq policies. >> + * In case of other devices the 'priv' field is unused. >> */ >> struct em_perf_domain { >> - struct em_cap_state *table; >> - int nr_cap_states; >> - unsigned long cpus[0]; >> + struct em_perf_state *table; >> + int nr_perf_states; >> + void *priv; > > In case you go back to the variable length field plus type field to > distingush EM devices, keep cpus[0] as the name.
OK, I will.
> > [..] > >> /** >> - * em_pd_energy() - Estimates the energy consumed by the CPUs of a perf. domain >> + * em_pd_energy() - Estimates the energy consumed by the CPUs of a perf. >> + domain > > Why this change?
hmmm, that's odd, maybe there was 'device' then I changed it back to 'CPUs' but forgot to move the 'domain' to the old place.
> > [...] > >> @@ -141,12 +210,12 @@ static struct em_perf_domain *em_create_pd(cpumask_t *span, int nr_states, >> */ >> opp_eff = freq / power; >> if (opp_eff >= prev_opp_eff) >> - pr_warn("pd%d: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: em_cap_state %d >= em_cap_state%d\n", >> - cpu, i, i - 1); >> + dev_warn(dev, "energy_model: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: em_perf_state %d >= em_perf_state%d\n", > > s/energy_model/EM ?
OK, I will rename them in all places.
Thank you for the review.
Regards, Lukasz
| |