[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 05/12] PM / devfreq: Add support for policy notifiers
Hi Matthias,

On 2018년 08월 07일 03:46, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Chanwoo,
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 08:56:57AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>> On 2018년 08월 03일 08:13, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:58:59AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>> On 2018년 08월 02일 02:08, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:22:16AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018년 08월 01일 04:39, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 10:50:50AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 05:44:33PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>>>> On 2018년 07월 07일 02:53, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Chanwoo,
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 03:41:46PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Firstly,
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why devfreq needs the devfreq_verify_within_limits() function.
>>>>>>>>>>> devfreq already used the OPP interface as default. It means that
>>>>>>>>>>> the outside of 'drivers/devfreq' can disable/enable the frequency
>>>>>>>>>>> such as drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c. Also, when some device
>>>>>>>>>>> drivers disable/enable the specific frequency, the devfreq core
>>>>>>>>>>> consider them.
>>>>>>>>>>> So, devfreq doesn't need to devfreq_verify_within_limits() because
>>>>>>>>>>> already support some interface to change the minimum/maximum frequency
>>>>>>>>>>> of devfreq device.
>>>>>>>>>>> In case of cpufreq subsystem, cpufreq only provides 'cpufreq_verify_with_limits()'
>>>>>>>>>>> to change the minimum/maximum frequency of cpu. some device driver cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> change the minimum/maximum frequency through OPP interface.
>>>>>>>>>>> But, in case of devfreq subsystem, as I explained already, devfreq support
>>>>>>>>>>> the OPP interface as default way. devfreq subsystem doesn't need to add
>>>>>>>>>>> other way to change the minimum/maximum frequency.
>>>>>>>>>> Using the OPP interface exclusively works as long as a
>>>>>>>>>> enabling/disabling of OPPs is limited to a single driver
>>>>>>>>>> (drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c). When multiple drivers are
>>>>>>>>>> involved you need a way to resolve conflicts, that's the purpose of
>>>>>>>>>> devfreq_verify_within_limits(). Please let me know if there are
>>>>>>>>>> existing mechanisms for conflict resolution that I overlooked.
>>>>>>>>>> Possibly drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c could be migrated to use
>>>>>>>>>> devfreq_verify_within_limits() instead of the OPP interface if
>>>>>>>>>> desired, however this seems beyond the scope of this series.
>>>>>>>>> Actually, if we uses this approach, it doesn't support the multiple drivers too.
>>>>>>>>> If non throttler drivers uses devfreq_verify_within_limits(), the conflict
>>>>>>>>> happen.
>>>>>>>> As long as drivers limit the max freq there is no conflict, the lowest
>>>>>>>> max freq wins. I expect this to be the usual case, apparently it
>>>>>>>> worked for cpufreq for 10+ years.
>>>>>>>> However it is correct that there would be a conflict if a driver
>>>>>>>> requests a min freq that is higher than the max freq requested by
>>>>>>>> another. In this case devfreq_verify_within_limits() resolves the
>>>>>>>> conflict by raising p->max to the min freq. Not sure if this is
>>>>>>>> something that would ever occur in practice though.
>>>>>>>> If we are really concerned about this case it would also be an option
>>>>>>>> to limit the adjustment to the max frequency.
>>>>>>>>> To resolve the conflict for multiple device driver, maybe OPP interface
>>>>>>>>> have to support 'usage_count' such as clk_enable/disable().
>>>>>>>> This would require supporting negative usage count values, since a OPP
>>>>>>>> should not be enabled if e.g. thermal enables it but the throttler
>>>>>>>> disabled it or viceversa.
>>>>>>>> Theoretically there could also be conflicts, like one driver disabling
>>>>>>>> the higher OPPs and another the lower ones, with the outcome of all
>>>>>>>> OPPs being disabled, which would be a more drastic conflict resolution
>>>>>>>> than that of devfreq_verify_within_limits().
>>>>>>>> Viresh, what do you think about an OPP usage count?
>>>>>>> Ping, can we try to reach a conclusion on this or at least keep the
>>>>>>> discussion going?
>>>>>>> Not that it matters, but my preferred solution continues to be
>>>>>>> devfreq_verify_within_limits(). It solves conflicts in some way (which
>>>>>>> could be adjusted if needed) and has proven to work in practice for
>>>>>>> 10+ years in a very similar sub-system.
>>>>>> It is not true. Current cpufreq subsystem doesn't support external OPP
>>>>>> control to enable/disable the OPP entry. If some device driver
>>>>>> controls the OPP entry of cpufreq driver with opp_disable/enable(),
>>>>>> the operation is not working. Because cpufreq considers the limit
>>>>>> through 'cpufreq_verify_with_limits()' only.
>>>>> Ok, we can probably agree that using cpufreq_verify_with_limits()
>>>>> exclusively seems to have worked well for cpufreq, and that in their
>>>>> overall purpose cpufreq and devfreq are similar subsystems.
>>>>> The current throttler series with devfreq_verify_within_limits() takes
>>>>> the enabled OPPs into account, the lowest and highest OPP are used as
>>>>> a starting point for the frequency adjustment and (in theory) the
>>>>> frequency range should only be narrowed by
>>>>> devfreq_verify_within_limits().
>>>>>> As I already commented[1], there is different between cpufreq and devfreq.
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> Already, subsystem already used OPP interface in order to control
>>>>>> specific OPP entry. I don't want to provide two outside method
>>>>>> to control the frequency of devfreq driver. It might make the confusion.
>>>>> I understand your point, it would indeed be preferable to have a
>>>>> single method. However I'm not convinced that the OPP interface is
>>>>> a suitable solution, as I exposed earlier in this thread (quoted
>>>>> below).
>>>>> I would like you to at least consider the possibility of changing
>>>>> drivers/thermal/devfreq_cooling.c to devfreq_verify_within_limits().
>>>>> Besides that it's not what is currently used, do you see any technical
>>>>> concerns that would make devfreq_verify_within_limits() an unsuitable
>>>>> or inferior solution?
>>>> As we already discussed, devfreq_verify_within_limits() doesn't support
>>>> the multiple outside controllers (e.g., devfreq-cooling.c).
>>> That's incorrect, its purpose is precisely that.
>>> Are you suggesting that cpufreq with its use of
>>> cpufreq_verify_within_limits() (the inspiration for
>>> devfreq_verify_within_limits()) is broken? It is used by cpu_cooling.c
>>> and other drivers when receiving a CPUFREQ_ADJUST event, essentially
>>> what I am proposing with DEVFREQ_ADJUST.
>>> Could you elaborate why this model wouldn't work for devfreq? "OPP
>> I don't mention that this model is not working. As I already commented[1],
>> devfreq used OPP interface to control OPP entry on outside of devfreq driver.
>> Because devfreq used OPP interface, I hope to provide only OPP method
>> to control the frequency on outside of devfreq.
>> [1]
>>> interface is mandatory for devfreq" isn't really a technical argument,
>>> is it mandatory for any other reason than that it is the interface
>>> that is currently used?
>> In case of controlling the frequency, OPP interface is mandatory for devfreq.
>> cpufreq used cpufreq_verify_within_limit(). If outside driver disable
>> specific OPP entry, cpufreq don't consider them because after getting the frequency
>> from devicetree, cpufreq don't use the OPP interface for disabling/enabling.
>> Only if outside driver used cpufreq_verify_within_limit(), cpufreq consider
>> the range of minimum/maximum frequency. cpufreq core doesn't use 'dev_pm_opp_find_*'
>> function. It means that cpufreq code doesn't consider the statue of opp_diable/enable.
>> devfreq used OPP interface. If outside driver disable specific OPP entry, devfreq consider them.
> What exactly is this 'outside driver' you are referring? The driver
> that 'owns' the devfreq device, e.g. a GPU driver? Or just any
> non-devfreq driver, like devfreq-cooling.c?
> If it's the first case then this isn't currently working as intended
> when the devfreq device is used as a cooling device, since the cooling
> device would overwrite the state set by the 'owner' in
> partition_enable_opps().
>> When find available minimum frequency, devfreq used OPP interface. (find_available_min_freq)
>> When find available maximum frequency, devfreq used OPP interface. (find_available_max_freq)
>> When make freq_table of devfreq device, devfreq used OPP interface. (set_freq_table)
>> When outside driver disable or enable OPP entry, devfreq receives the notification
>> from OPP interface and then update the scaling_min_freq/scaling_max_freq by using
>> OPP interface. (devfreq_notifier_call)
>> At this point of using scaling_min_freq/scaling_max_freq on devfreq, it indicates
>> that devfreq used OPP interface because devfref tried to find scaling_min_freq/scaling_max_freq
>> through OPP interface.
>> If outside driver use OPP interface in order to control frequency,
>> devfreq core is well working without any modification of devfreq
>> core.
> Thanks for elaborating!
> I understand that this is how it currently works, but unless I'm
> missing something about the outside driver disabling an OPP I still
> essentially read this as 'the OPP interface is mandatory because it's
> what is currently used by the devfreq core to limit the frequency
> range', rather than that using the OPP interface allows to provide a
> particular feature or is inherently better in some other way.
> I don't propose to completely strip the OPP interface out of devfreq,
> but mainly to switch devfreq-cooling.c to
> devfreq_verify_within_limits() to avoid having two mechanisms for
> limiting the frequency range. Besides being simpler this would allow
> to support the case where the 'owner' disables a certain OPP and
> devfreq respects that. The code required in the devfreq core to
> support this would be minimal (this patch).
>>>> After you are suggesting the throttler core, there are at least two
>>>> outside controllers (e.g., devfreq-cooling.c and throttler driver).
>>>> As I knew the problem about conflict, I cannot agree the temporary
>>>> method. OPP interface is mandatory for devfreq in order to control
>>>> the OPP (frequency/voltage). In this situation, we have to try to
>>>> find the method through OPP interface.
>>> What do you mean with "temporary method"?
>> this expression might be not proper. Please ignore this expression.
>>> We can try to find a method through the OPP interface, but at this
>>> point I'm not convinced that it is technically necessary or even
>>> preferable.
>> I replied it about this as following.
>>> Another inconvenient of the OPP approach for both devfreq-cooling.c
>>> and the throttler is that they have to bother with disabling all OPPs
>>> above/below the max/min (they don't/shouldn't have to care), instead
>>> of just telling devfreq the max/min.
>> I think it doesn't matter. We can enable/disable the OPP entry by traversing.
>> partition_enable_opps() in drivers/thermal/devfreq-cools.c have already done so.
>>>> We can refer to regulator/clock. Multiple device driver can use
>>>> the regulator/clock without any problem. I think that usage of OPP
>>>> is similiar with regulator/clock. As you mentioned, maybe OPP
>>>> would handle the negative count. Although opp_enable/opp_disable()
>>>> have to handle the negative count and opp_enable/opp_disable()
>>>> can support the multiple usage from device drivers, I think that
>>>> this approach is right.
>>> The regulator/clock approach with the typical usage counts seems more
>>> intuitive to me, personally I wouldn't write an interface with
>>> negative usage count if I could reasonably avoid it.
>> I think the use of negative usage count is not problem if it's required.
>>>>>> I want to use only OPP interface to enable/disable frequency
>>>>>> even if we have to modify the OPP interface.
>>>>> These are the concerns I raised earlier about a solution with OPP
>>>>> usage counts:
>>>>> "This would require supporting negative usage count values, since a OPP
>>>>> should not be enabled if e.g. thermal enables it but the throttler
>>>>> disabled it or viceversa.
>>>> Already replied about negative usage count. I think that negative usage count
>>>> is not problem if this approach could resolve the issue.
>>>>> Theoretically there could also be conflicts, like one driver disabling
>>>>> the higher OPPs and another the lower ones, with the outcome of all
>>>>> OPPs being disabled, which would be a more drastic conflict resolution
>>>>> than that of devfreq_verify_within_limits()."
>>>>> What do you think about these points?
>>>> It depends on how to use OPP interface on multiple device driver.
>>>> Even if devfreq/opp provides the control method, outside device driver
>>>> are misusing them. It is problem of user.
>>> I wouldn't call it misusing if two independent drivers take
>>> contradictory actions on an interface that doesn't provide
>>> arbitration. How can driver A know that it shouldn't disable OPPs a, b
>>> and c because driver B disabled d, e and f? Who is misusing the
>>> interface, driver A or driver B?
>> Each outside driver has their own throttling policy to control OPP entries.
>> They don't care the requirement of other driver and cannot know the requirement
>> of other driver. devfreq core can only recognize them.
>>>> Instead, if we use the OPP interface, we can check why OPP entry
>>>> is disabled or enabled through usage count.
>>>>> The negative usage counts aren't necessarily a dealbreaker in a
>>>>> technical sense, though I'm not a friend of quirky interfaces that
>>>>> don't behave like a typical user would expect (e.g. an OPP isn't
>>>>> necessarily enabled after dev_pm_opp_enable()).
>>>>> I can sent an RFC with OPP usage counts, though due to the above
>>>>> concerns I have doubts it will be well received.
>>>> Please add me to Cc list.
>>> Will do
>> OK. Thanks.
> This might take a bit for a few reasons. Before posting anything I
> would like to experiment a bit with it and find time to do so between
> other tasks (admittedly I'm also procrastinating a bit, because I'm
> unconvinced). And I will be out of office for two weeks starting
> nextweek, it's probably not the best to post and then disapear from
> the discussion. I might post the RFC if I can advance it in the next
> 48 hours, otherwise I think it is better to delay until I'm back from
> vacation.

I agree you better to do this after your vacation.

Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-07 00:17    [W:0.199 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site