lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] docs: Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model
From
Date

On 9/30/2020 7:34 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>
>
> On 9/30/20 11:55 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>
>> On 9/30/2020 1:55 PM, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>
>>> On 9/30/20 12:53 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:16 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Energy Model (EM) can store power values in milli-Watts or in abstract
>>>>> scale. This might cause issues in the subsystems which use the EM for
>>>>> estimating the device power, such as:
>>>>> - mixing of different scales in a subsystem which uses multiple
>>>>>    (cooling) devices (e.g. thermal Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA))
>>>>> - assuming that energy [milli-Joules] can be derived from the EM power
>>>>>    values which might not be possible since the power scale doesn't have to
>>>>>    be in milli-Watts
>>>>>
>>>>> To avoid misconfiguration add the needed documentation to the EM and
>>>>> related subsystems: EAS and IPA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   .../driver-api/thermal/power_allocator.rst          |  8 ++++++++
>>>>>   Documentation/power/energy-model.rst                | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>   Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.rst            |  5 +++++
>>>>>   3 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> I haven't read through these files in massive detail, but the quick
>>>> skim makes me believe that your additions seem sane.  In general, I'm
>>>> happy with documenting reality, thus:
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the review.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I will note: you haven't actually updated the device tree bindings.
>>>> Thus, presumably, anyone who is specifying these numbers in the device
>>>> tree is still supposed to specify them in a way that mW can be
>>>> recovered, right?  Said another way: nothing about your patches makes
>>>> it OK to specify numbers in device trees using an "abstract scale",
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> For completeness, we are talking here about the binding from:
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
>>> which is 'dynamic-power-coefficient'. Yes, it stays untouched, also the
>>> unit (uW/MHz/V^2) which then allows to have mW in the power
>>> values in the EM.
>>
>> So for platforms where 'dynamic-power-coefficient' is specified in device tree,
>> its always expected to be derived from 'real' power numbers on these platforms in
>> 'real' mW?
>
> Yes, the purpose and the name of that binding was only for 'real'
> power in mW.
>
>>
>> Atleast on Qualcomm platforms we have these numbers scaled, so in essence it
>> can't be used to derive 'real' mW values. That said we also do not have any of
>> the 'platform might face potential issue of mixing devices in one thermal zone
>> of two scales' problem.
>
> If you have these numbers scaled, then it's probably documented
> somewhere in your docs for your OEMs, because they might assume it's in
> uW/MHz/V^2 (according to the bindings doc). If not, they probably
> realized it during the measurements and comparison (that the power in
> EM is not what they see on the power meter).
> This binding actually helps those developers who take the experiments
> and based on measured power values, store derived coefficient.
> Everyone can just measure in local setup and compare the results
> easily, speaking the same language (proposing maybe a patch adjusting
> the value in DT).
>
>>
>> So the question is, can such platforms still use 'dynamic-power-coefficient'
>> in device tree and create an abstract scale? The other way of doing this would
>> be to *not* specify this value in device tree and have these values stored in the
>> cpufreq driver and register a custom callback to do the math.
>
> But then we would also have to change the name of that binding.
>
> I'd recommend you the second way that you've described. It will avoid
> your OEMs confusion. In your cpufreq driver you can simply register
> to EM using the em_dev_register_perf_domain(). In your local
> callback you can do whatever you need (read driver array, firmware,
> DT, scale or not, etc).
> The helper code in dev_pm_opp_of_register_em() is probably not suited
> for your use case (when you don't want to share the real power of the
> SoC).

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I will get the cpufreq driver updated
to use em_dev_register_perf_domain() with a custom callback and get rid of these
values from device tree.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-30 17:48    [W:0.057 / U:2.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site