Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 00/17] thermal: cpu_cooling: improve interaction with cpufreq core | From | Lukasz Luba <> | Date | Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:40:15 +0100 |
| |
Hi Viresh,
I have checkout your branch at newest commit: 908063832c268f8add94 I have built it and run it on my Juno r2. I have some python tests for IPA and I run one of them.
I seen a few issues so I have created a patch just to be able to run IPA. My next email will have the patch so you can see the changes.
IPA does not work with this patch set. I have tested two source codes from your repo: 1. your change 908063832c268f8add94 2. your base 8f506e0faf4e2a4a0bde9f9b1
In case 1. IPA does not work - temperature rises to 83degC in case 2. works - temperature is limited to 65degC.
On Monday I can allocate more time for it.
Regards, Lukasz
On 18/04/17 11:38, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17-04-17, 10:34, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >> Hey, >> >> On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:31:45AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> Hi Guys, >>> >>> The cpu_cooling driver is designed to use CPU frequency scaling to avoid >>> high thermal states for a platform. But it wasn't glued really well with >>> cpufreq core. >>> >>> This series tries to improve interactions between cpufreq core and >>> cpu_cooling driver and does some fixes/cleanups to the cpu_cooling >>> driver. >> >> >> Can you please be more specific of what exactly is not gluing >> properly/really well? I like refactoring, as long as well justified. >> >> Do you see anything broken currently? > > It wasn't broken really but the same information is scattered around > and it wasn't clear on which one is the best one refer. For example, > clipped-cpus is copied from the policy structure, but the policy->cpus > thing can get updated later on, while the clipped-cpus never got > updated. It makes more sense to get rid of the copies we are keeping > and reuse the real fields, i.e. use the cpufreq policy directly in > cpu_cooling. > > And then it caused lots of cleanups as well.. > >>> I have tested it on ARM 32 (exynos) and 64 bit (hikey) boards and have >>> pushed them for 0-day build bot and kernel CI testing as well. We should >>> know if something is broken with these. >> >> Nice. What governors did you try? Have you checked "power_allocator" by >> any chance? > > I tried setting all the governors including power_allocator on my > exynos board, and didn't see anything broken. My branch also got > tested by kernel CI bot for build and boot tests on a wide range of > ARM boards and I didn't see any bad reports due to this set. So it > should be okay. > >>> >>> @Javi: It would be good if you can give them a test, specially because >>> of your work on the "power" specific bits in the driver. >>> >> >> >> @Javi, are you still around? This needs to be validated in terms of how >> the cdev states and power models are computed. Just to make sure we are >> in one piece. Copying the ARM folks too, Punit?. > > And yes, I specifically wanted Javi (or some other ARM guy) to test > this stuff out. Looks like Lukasz will help out now. > > Thanks to all of you :) >
| |