| Message ID | 20230925081139.1305766-4-lukasz.luba@arm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce runtime modifiable Energy Model | expand |
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:11 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote: > > The Energy Model might be updated at runtime and the energy efficiency > for each OPP may change. Thus, there is a need to update also the > cpufreq framework and make it aligned to the new values. In order to > do that, use a first online CPU from the Performance Domain. > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> > --- > kernel/power/energy_model.c | 11 +++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c > index 42486674b834..3dafdd7731c4 100644 > --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c > +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c > @@ -243,12 +243,19 @@ em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table) > struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd; > struct cpufreq_policy *policy; > int found = 0; > - int i; > + int i, cpu; > > if (!_is_cpu_device(dev) || !pd) > return; > > - policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpumask_first(em_span_cpus(pd))); > + /* Try to get a CPU which is online and in this PD */ > + cpu = cpumask_first_and(em_span_cpus(pd), cpu_active_mask); The comment talks about "online" and cpu_active_mask is used. Isn't it a bit inconsistent? > + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) { > + dev_warn(dev, "EM: No online CPU for CPUFreq policy\n"); > + return; > + } > + > + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > if (!policy) { > dev_warn(dev, "EM: Access to CPUFreq policy failed\n"); > return; > -- > 2.25.1 >
Hi Rafael, Thank you having reviewing those patches! On 9/26/23 19:32, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 10:11 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote: >> >> The Energy Model might be updated at runtime and the energy efficiency >> for each OPP may change. Thus, there is a need to update also the >> cpufreq framework and make it aligned to the new values. In order to >> do that, use a first online CPU from the Performance Domain. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> >> --- >> kernel/power/energy_model.c | 11 +++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c >> index 42486674b834..3dafdd7731c4 100644 >> --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c >> +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c >> @@ -243,12 +243,19 @@ em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table) >> struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd; >> struct cpufreq_policy *policy; >> int found = 0; >> - int i; >> + int i, cpu; >> >> if (!_is_cpu_device(dev) || !pd) >> return; >> >> - policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpumask_first(em_span_cpus(pd))); >> + /* Try to get a CPU which is online and in this PD */ >> + cpu = cpumask_first_and(em_span_cpus(pd), cpu_active_mask); > > The comment talks about "online" and cpu_active_mask is used. Isn't > it a bit inconsistent? good point, I'll change the word to 'active' > >> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) { >> + dev_warn(dev, "EM: No online CPU for CPUFreq policy\n"); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); >> if (!policy) { >> dev_warn(dev, "EM: Access to CPUFreq policy failed\n"); >> return; >> -- >> 2.25.1 >>
Hi Lukasz, On 25/09/2023 10:11, Lukasz Luba wrote: > The Energy Model might be updated at runtime and the energy efficiency > for each OPP may change. Thus, there is a need to update also the > cpufreq framework and make it aligned to the new values. In order to > do that, use a first online CPU from the Performance Domain. I'm failing to do the connection with the description and the change. Perhaps, the changelog shall explain why 'cpu' must be replaced with the first active cpu ? > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> > --- > kernel/power/energy_model.c | 11 +++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c > index 42486674b834..3dafdd7731c4 100644 > --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c > +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c > @@ -243,12 +243,19 @@ em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table) > struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd; > struct cpufreq_policy *policy; > int found = 0; > - int i; > + int i, cpu; > > if (!_is_cpu_device(dev) || !pd) > return; > > - policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpumask_first(em_span_cpus(pd))); > + /* Try to get a CPU which is online and in this PD */ > + cpu = cpumask_first_and(em_span_cpus(pd), cpu_active_mask); > + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) { > + dev_warn(dev, "EM: No online CPU for CPUFreq policy\n"); > + return; > + } > + > + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); > if (!policy) { > dev_warn(dev, "EM: Access to CPUFreq policy failed\n"); > return;
diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c index 42486674b834..3dafdd7731c4 100644 --- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c +++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c @@ -243,12 +243,19 @@ em_cpufreq_update_efficiencies(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table) struct em_perf_domain *pd = dev->em_pd; struct cpufreq_policy *policy; int found = 0; - int i; + int i, cpu; if (!_is_cpu_device(dev) || !pd) return; - policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpumask_first(em_span_cpus(pd))); + /* Try to get a CPU which is online and in this PD */ + cpu = cpumask_first_and(em_span_cpus(pd), cpu_active_mask); + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) { + dev_warn(dev, "EM: No online CPU for CPUFreq policy\n"); + return; + } + + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu); if (!policy) { dev_warn(dev, "EM: Access to CPUFreq policy failed\n"); return;
The Energy Model might be updated at runtime and the energy efficiency for each OPP may change. Thus, there is a need to update also the cpufreq framework and make it aligned to the new values. In order to do that, use a first online CPU from the Performance Domain. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> --- kernel/power/energy_model.c | 11 +++++++++-- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)