| Message ID | 20201103090600.29053-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model, EAS and IPA | expand |
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:05:57AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote: > @@ -79,7 +82,8 @@ struct em_data_callback { > struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu); > struct em_perf_domain *em_pd_get(struct device *dev); > int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states, > - struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *span); > + struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *spani, "spani" looks like a typo?
On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:09:05AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > On 11/5/20 9:18 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:05:57AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > > @@ -79,7 +82,8 @@ struct em_data_callback { > > > struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu); > > > struct em_perf_domain *em_pd_get(struct device *dev); > > > int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states, > > > - struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *span); > > > + struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *spani, > > > > "spani" looks like a typo? > > > > Good catch, yes, the vim 'i'. > > Thank you Morten. I will resend this patch when you don't > find other issues in the rest of patches. The rest of the series looks okay to me. Morten
On 11/5/20 10:56 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 10:09:05AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote: >> >> >> On 11/5/20 9:18 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:05:57AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote: >>>> @@ -79,7 +82,8 @@ struct em_data_callback { >>>> struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu); >>>> struct em_perf_domain *em_pd_get(struct device *dev); >>>> int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states, >>>> - struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *span); >>>> + struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *spani, >>> >>> "spani" looks like a typo? >>> >> >> Good catch, yes, the vim 'i'. >> >> Thank you Morten. I will resend this patch when you don't >> find other issues in the rest of patches. > > The rest of the series looks okay to me. Thank you for checking the whole series. I have re-sent this patch only. Lukasz > > Morten >
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:58 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On 11/3/20 9:05 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The Energy Model supports power values expressed in an abstract scale. > > This has an impact on Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA) and should be > > documented properly. Kernel sub-systems like EAS, IPA and DTPM > > (new comming PowerCap framework) would use the new flag to capture > > potential miss-configuration where the devices have registered different > > power scales, thus cannot operate together. > > > > There was a discussion below v2 of this patch series, which might help > > you to get context of these changes [2]. > > > > The agreed approach is to have the DT as a source of power values expressed > > always in milli-Watts and the only way to submit with abstract scale values > > is via the em_dev_register_perf_domain() API. > > > > Changes: > > v4: > > - change bool to int type for 'miliwatts' in struct em_perf_domain > > (suggested by Quentin) > > - removed one sentence from patch 2/4 in IPA doc power_allocator.rst > > (suggested by Quentin) > > - added reviewed-by from Quentin to 1/4, 3/4, 4/4 patches > > There was no major objections in the v3 and this v4 just addressed > minor comments. The important discussions mostly happen in v2. > > Could you take the patches via your tree, please? Applied as 5.11 material, thanks!
On 11/10/20 7:32 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 11:58 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Rafael, >> >> On 11/3/20 9:05 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The Energy Model supports power values expressed in an abstract scale. >>> This has an impact on Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA) and should be >>> documented properly. Kernel sub-systems like EAS, IPA and DTPM >>> (new comming PowerCap framework) would use the new flag to capture >>> potential miss-configuration where the devices have registered different >>> power scales, thus cannot operate together. >>> >>> There was a discussion below v2 of this patch series, which might help >>> you to get context of these changes [2]. >>> >>> The agreed approach is to have the DT as a source of power values expressed >>> always in milli-Watts and the only way to submit with abstract scale values >>> is via the em_dev_register_perf_domain() API. >>> >>> Changes: >>> v4: >>> - change bool to int type for 'miliwatts' in struct em_perf_domain >>> (suggested by Quentin) >>> - removed one sentence from patch 2/4 in IPA doc power_allocator.rst >>> (suggested by Quentin) >>> - added reviewed-by from Quentin to 1/4, 3/4, 4/4 patches >> >> There was no major objections in the v3 and this v4 just addressed >> minor comments. The important discussions mostly happen in v2. >> >> Could you take the patches via your tree, please? > > Applied as 5.11 material, thanks! > Thank you Rafael! Regards, Lukasz