| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The hierarchy creation function exits but without a destroy hierarchy
function. Due to that, the modules creating the hierarchy can not be
unloaded properly because they don't have an exit callback.
Provide the dtpm_destroy_hierarchy() function to remove the previously
created hierarchy.
The function relies on all the release mechanisms implemented by the
underlying powercap framework.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220130210210.549877-4-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
|
|
The DTPM framework is available but without a way to configure it.
This change provides a way to create a hierarchy of DTPM node where
the power consumption reflects the sum of the children's power
consumption.
It is up to the platform to specify an array of dtpm nodes where each
element has a pointer to its parent, except the top most one. The type
of the node gives the indication of which initialization callback to
call. At this time, we can create a virtual node, where its purpose is
to be a parent in the hierarchy, and a DT node where the name
describes its path.
In order to ensure a nice self-encapsulation, the DTPM subsys array
contains a couple of initialization functions, one to setup the DTPM
backend and one to initialize it up. With this approach, the DTPM
framework has a very few material to export.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220128163537.212248-3-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
|
|
The init table section is freed after the system booted. However the
next changes will make per module the DTPM description, so the table
won't be accessible when the module is loaded.
In order to fix that, we should move the table to the data section
where there are very few entries and that makes strange to add it
there.
The main goal of the table was to keep self-encapsulated code and we
can keep it almost as it by using an array instead.
Suggested-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220128163537.212248-2-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
|
|
The dtpm.h header file is exporting a function which is not
implemented neither needed. Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211123101601.2433340-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
|
|
The dtpm framework provides an API to allocate a dtpm node. However
when a backend dtpm driver needs to allocate a dtpm node it must
define its own structure and store the pointer of this structure in
the private field of the dtpm structure.
It is more elegant to use the container_of macro and add the dtpm
structure inside the dtpm backend specific structure. The code will be
able to deal properly with the dtpm structure as a generic entity,
making all this even more self-encapsulated.
The dtpm_alloc() function does no longer make sense as the dtpm
structure will be allocated when allocating the device specific dtpm
structure. The dtpm_init() is provided instead.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210312130411.29833-4-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
|
|
The dtpm table is an array of pointers, that forces the user of the
table to define initdata along with the declaration of the table
entry. It is more efficient to create an array of dtpm structure, so
the declaration of the table entry can be done by initializing the
different fields.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210312130411.29833-3-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
|
|
In order to increase the self-encapsulation of the dtpm generic code,
the following changes are adding a power update ops to the dtpm
ops. That allows the generic code to call directly the dtpm backend
function to update the power values.
The power update function does compute the power characteristics when
the function is invoked. In the case of the CPUs, the power
consumption depends on the number of online CPUs. The online CPUs mask
is not up to date at CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN state in the tear down
callback. That is the reason why the online / offline are at separate
state. As there is already an existing state for DTPM, this one is
only moved to the DEAD state, so there is no addition of new state
with these changes. The dtpm node is not removed when the cpu is
unplugged.
That simplifies the code for the next changes and results in a more
self-encapsulated code.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210312130411.29833-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
|
|
With the powercap dtpm controller, we are able to plug devices with
power limitation features in the tree.
The following patch introduces the CPU power limitation based on the
energy model and the performance states.
The power limitation is done at the performance domain level. If some
CPUs are unplugged, the corresponding power will be subtracted from
the performance domain total power.
It is up to the platform to initialize the dtpm tree and add the CPU.
Here is an example to create a simple tree with one root node called
"pkg" and the CPU's performance domains.
static int dtpm_register_pkg(struct dtpm_descr *descr)
{
struct dtpm *pkg;
int ret;
pkg = dtpm_alloc(NULL);
if (!pkg)
return -ENOMEM;
ret = dtpm_register(descr->name, pkg, descr->parent);
if (ret)
return ret;
return dtpm_register_cpu(pkg);
}
static struct dtpm_descr descr = {
.name = "pkg",
.init = dtpm_register_pkg,
};
DTPM_DECLARE(descr);
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
On the embedded world, the complexity of the SoC leads to an
increasing number of hotspots which need to be monitored and mitigated
as a whole in order to prevent the temperature to go above the
normative and legally stated 'skin temperature'.
Another aspect is to sustain the performance for a given power budget,
for example virtual reality where the user can feel dizziness if the
GPU performance is capped while a big CPU is processing something
else. Or reduce the battery charging because the dissipated power is
too high compared with the power consumed by other devices.
The userspace is the most adequate place to dynamically act on the
different devices by limiting their power given an application
profile: it has the knowledge of the platform.
These userspace daemons are in charge of the Dynamic Thermal Power
Management (DTPM).
Nowadays, the dtpm daemons are abusing the thermal framework as they
act on the cooling device state to force a specific and arbitrary
state without taking care of the governor decisions. Given the closed
loop of some governors that can confuse the logic or directly enter in
a decision conflict.
As the number of cooling device support is limited today to the CPU
and the GPU, the dtpm daemons have little control on the power
dissipation of the system. The out of tree solutions are hacking
around here and there in the drivers, in the frameworks to have
control on the devices. The common solution is to declare them as
cooling devices.
There is no unification of the power limitation unit, opaque states
are used.
This patch provides a way to create a hierarchy of constraints using
the powercap framework. The devices which are registered as power
limit-able devices are represented in this hierarchy as a tree. They
are linked together with intermediate nodes which are just there to
propagate the constraint to the children.
The leaves of the tree are the real devices, the intermediate nodes
are virtual, aggregating the children constraints and power
characteristics.
Each node have a weight on a 2^10 basis, in order to reflect the
percentage of power distribution of the children's node. This
percentage is used to dispatch the power limit to the children.
The weight is computed against the max power of the siblings.
This simple approach allows to do a fair distribution of the power
limit.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Tested-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
