lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] interconnect: Skip call into provider if initial bw is zero
From
On 14/01/2023 01:24, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 13/01/2023 22:07, Vivek Aknurwar wrote:
>> Currently framework sets bw even when init bw requirements are zero
>> during
>> provider registration, thus resulting bulk of set bw to hw.
>> Avoid this behaviour by skipping provider set bw calls if init bw is
>> zero.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Aknurwar <quic_viveka@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/interconnect/core.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/core.c b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
>> index 25debde..43ed595 100644
>> --- a/drivers/interconnect/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/interconnect/core.c
>> @@ -977,14 +977,17 @@ void icc_node_add(struct icc_node *node, struct
>> icc_provider *provider)
>>       node->avg_bw = node->init_avg;
>>       node->peak_bw = node->init_peak;
>> -    if (provider->pre_aggregate)
>> -        provider->pre_aggregate(node);
>> -
>> -    if (provider->aggregate)
>> -        provider->aggregate(node, 0, node->init_avg, node->init_peak,
>> -                    &node->avg_bw, &node->peak_bw);
>> +    if (node->avg_bw || node->peak_bw) {
>> +        if (provider->pre_aggregate)
>> +            provider->pre_aggregate(node);
>> +
>> +        if (provider->aggregate)
>> +            provider->aggregate(node, 0, node->init_avg,
>> node->init_peak,
>> +                        &node->avg_bw, &node->peak_bw);
>> +        if (provider->set)
>> +            provider->set(node, node);
>> +    }
>> -    provider->set(node, node);
>>       node->avg_bw = 0;
>>       node->peak_bw = 0;
>
> I have the same comment/question for this patch that I had for the qcom
> arch specific version of it. This patch seems to be doing at a higher
> level what the patch below was doing at a lower level.
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1039a507-c4cd-e92f-dc29-1e2169ce5078@linaro.org/T/#m0c90588d0d1e2ab88c39be8f5f3a8f0b61396349
>
> what happens to earlier silicon - qcom silicon which previously made
> explicit zero requests ?
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1039a507-c4cd-e92f-dc29-1e2169ce5078@linaro.org/T/#m589e8280de470e038249bb362634221771d845dd
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/1/3/1232
>
> Isn't it a better idea to let lower layer drivers differentiate what
> they do ?
>
> For example on pre 5.4 qcom kernel silicon we might choose to set the
> value to zero "because that's what the reference code did" but on newer
> silicon we might opt to skip the zero configuration ?
>
> I'm happy to be shown the error of my ways but, absent testing to *show*
> it doesn't impact existing legacy silicon, I think we should be wary of
> this change.
>
> ---
> bod

Oh, and what is the effect on Samsung and i.MX silicon interconnect
providers of skipping the zero set ?

---
bod

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:41    [W:0.105 / U:1.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site