lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2] soc: qcom: llcc: Support chipsets that can write to llcc registers
On 2020-09-03 19:16, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 2:58 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2020-08-18 21:07, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
>> > Hi Doug,
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I guess to start, it wasn't obvious (to me) that there were two
>> >> choices and we were picking one. Mentioning that the other
>> >> alternative was way-based allocation would help a lot. Even if you
>> >> can't fully explain the differences between the two, adding something
>> >> to the commit message indicating that this is a policy decision (in
>> >> other words, both work but each have their tradeoffs) would help.
>> >> Something like this, if it's correct:
>> >>
>> >> In general we try to enable capacity based allocation (instead of the
>> >> default way based allocation) since that gives us better performance
>> >> with the current software / hardware configuration.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thanks, I will add it for next version. Let me also go poke some arch
>> > teams
>> > to understand if we actually do gain something with this selection, who
>> > knows
>> > we might get some additional details as well.
>> >
>>
>> I got some information from arch team today, to quote them exactly:
>>
>> 1) What benefits capacity based allocation brings over the default way
>> based allocation?
>>
>> "Capacity based allows finer grain partition. It is not about improved
>> performance but more flexibility in configuration."
>>
>> 2) Retain through power collapse, doesn’t it burn more power?
>>
>> "This feature is similar to the standard feature of retention. Yes,
>> when
>> we
>> have cache in retention mode it burns more power but it keeps the
>> values
>> so
>> that when we wake up we can get more cache hits."
>>
>>
>> If its good enough, then I will add this info to the commit msg and
>> post
>> next version.
>
> Sounds fine to me. I was mostly looking for a high level idea of what
> was happening here. I am at least a little curious about the
> retention bit. Is that retention during S3, or during some sort of
> Runtime PM? Any idea how much power is burned? Unless the power is
> miniscule it seems hard to believe that it would be a net win to keep
> a cache powered up during S3 unless you're planning on waking up a
> lot.
>

The retention setting is based on sub cache id(SCID), so I think its for
runtime pm, the power numbers weren't provided. But I believe these
decisions are made after solid testing and not some random
approximations.

Thanks,
Sai

--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-03 17:48    [W:0.076 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site