Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:53:19 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RESEND][PATCH 0/8] Introduce support for artificial Energy Model | From | Lukasz Luba <> |
| |
Hi Rafael,
gentle ping. If you need some help with this maintenance, we can help.
Regards, Lukasz
On 4/4/22 13:35, Lukasz Luba wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > > The patch set has been on LKML for quite a while and got one ACK, > for the code touching something outside the EM (thermal cooling). > > AFAICS there is no interest and objections from others for this code. > > Therefore, I have a question: > What would be be process to have merge this code? > (We had internally a few reviews of this code) > > On 3/21/22 09:57, Lukasz Luba wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> This patch set adds new callback and support for artificial Energy >> Model (EM). >> The new EMs have artificially generated performance states. >> Such EMs can be created from lean information sources, such >> as the relative energy efficiency between CPUs. The ACPI based >> platforms provide this information >> (ACPI 6.4, s5.2.12.14 'GIC CPU Interface (GICC) Structure' >> 'Processor Power efficiency Class' field). >> >> Artificial EMs might require to directly provide the 'cost' of >> the generated performance state. This patch set adds a new callback >> .get_cost() for this. The EM framework does not force any model >> or formula, it's up to the platform code. >> >> Artificial EMs aim to leverage the Energy Aware Scheduler >> (EAS). Other frameworks relying on performance states >> information (i.e. IPA/DTPM) must be informed of the >> EM type and might be prevented from using it. This patch >> sets also does this by introducing a new flag: >> EM_PERF_DOMAIN_ARTIFICIAL. >> >> The patch set is based on current linux-next, where some >> changes to OPP & EM are queuing. >> >> The patch set also contains (patch 7/8 and patch 8/8) logic which >> prevents >> two EM's client frameworks from using this new EM type. Some other >> approach, >> using 'milli-watts', has been proposed and discussed, but refused [1]. >> This new flag is more precised and should not leave space for >> wrong interpretation. >> >> Shortly after this patch set you will see a patch set implementing the >> platform code and registering this new EM. >> > > > No one from Arm is an official maintainer of the EM code. > > Regards, > Lukasz
| |