lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/3] EM / PM: Inefficient OPPs
From
Date


On 5/26/21 11:24 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:

[snip]

>> What about disabling the OPP in the OPP core itself ? So every user
>> will get the
>> same picture.
>
> There are SoCs which have OPPs every 100MHz even at high freq. They are
> used e.g. when thermal kicks in. We shouldn't disable them in generic
> frameworks like OPP. They might be used to provide enough CPU capacity,
> when temp is high. Imagine you have a board which does some work:
> sends and received some UDP packets. The board has been tested in oven
> that it will still be able to handle X messages/sec but using an OPP,
> which in our heuristic is 'inefficient'. You cannot go above, because it
> will overheat the SoC, you might go below and find first 'efficient'
> OPP. You might harm this board performance if e.g. the OPP is 20% slower
> that this 'inefficient' which was tested by engineers.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Since the whole thing depends on EM and OPPs, I think we can
>>>> actually do this.
>>>>
>>>> When the cpufreq driver registers with the EM core, lets find all the
>>>> Inefficient OPPs and disable them once and for all. Of course, this
>>>> must be done
>>>> on voluntarily basis, a flag from the drivers will do. With this, we
>>>> won't be
>>>> required to update any thing at any of the governors end.
>>>
>>> We still need to keep the inefficient OPPs for thermal reason.
>>
>> How will that benefit us if that OPP is never going to run anyway ? We
>> won't be
>
> This OPP still might be used, the Vincent heuristic is just a 'hint'.
> Schedutil will check policy->max and could clamp the 'efficient'
> returned freq to first allowed, which might be 'inefficient'
>
>> cooling down the CPU then, isn't it ?
>
> The 'inefficient' OPP is called from our 'energy placement' angle. For
> other folks from automotive, industrial or IoT who are stress testing
> SoCs and boards in various circumstances, they might call our
> 'inefficient' perf state as 'efficient' - for they need.
>
> In our internal review I pointed that we are optimizing for mobiles with
> this and we might actually need a #ifdef, config or a switch for this
> heuristic.
>

But even in mobiles, we might start facing issues e.g. during high
resolution recording, when we just disable 'inefficient' OPPs,
which were used in such use case and higher temperature.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-26 12:39    [W:0.071 / U:0.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site