lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 15/15] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: dt: Register an Energy Model
Hi Viresh,

On Tuesday 20 Nov 2018 at 11:49:25 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19-11-18, 14:18, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > {
> > + struct em_data_callback em_cb = EM_DATA_CB(of_est_power);
> > struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> > struct opp_table *opp_table = NULL;
> > struct private_data *priv;
> > @@ -160,7 +203,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > unsigned int transition_latency;
> > bool fallback = false;
> > const char *name;
> > - int ret;
> > + int ret, nr_opp;
> >
> > cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
> > if (!cpu_dev) {
> > @@ -237,6 +280,7 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > goto out_free_opp;
> > }
> > + nr_opp = ret;
> >
> > if (fallback) {
> > cpumask_setall(policy->cpus);
> > @@ -280,6 +324,8 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency = transition_latency;
> > policy->dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = true;
> >
> > + em_register_perf_domain(policy->cpus, nr_opp, &em_cb);
> > +
> > return 0;
> >
> > out_free_cpufreq_table:
>
> I haven't gone deep into the series, but why don't we need something
> like em_unregister_perf_domain()? That can be used if the cpufreq
> driver goes away. Else loading/unloading/loading the cpufreq driver
> may register the perf-domain callback again.

Right, that's a good point. Registering the perf-domain multiple times
is harmless -- all but the first registration will be ignored. That
_should_ be documented somewhere in patch 03. I'll double check and add
the doc if that's not the case.

The overall idea so far has been to keep the EM framework as simple as
possible. We allocate the EM once and it stays in memory forever. That
makes it really easy for the scheduler (for instance) to manipulate
pointers to perf domains without having to worry about them being
unregistered. We could definitely do something smarter to
register/unregister the PDs dynamically using refcount or something,
but hopefully this is something we can do later, if need be.

Thanks,
Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-20 11:03    [W:0.082 / U:0.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site