Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2024 20:05:37 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 07/16] thermal: gov_power_allocator: Eliminate a redundant variable |
| |
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 8:00 PM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 23/04/2024 19:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:35 PM Daniel Lezcano > > <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 10/04/2024 18:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >>> > >>> Notice that the passive field in struct thermal_zone_device is not > >>> used by the Power Allocator governor itself and so the ordering of > >>> its updates with respect to allow_maximum_power() or allocate_power() > >>> does not matter. > >>> > >>> Accordingly, make power_allocator_manage() update that field right > >>> before returning, which allows the current value of it to be passed > >>> directly to allow_maximum_power() without using the additional update > >>> variable that can be dropped. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >>> --- > >> > >> The step_wise and the power allocator are changing the tz->passive > >> values, so telling the core to start and stop the passive mitigation timer. > >> > >> It looks strange that a plugin controls the core internal and not the > >> opposite. > >> > >> I'm wondering if it would not make sense to have the following ops: > >> > >> .start > >> .stop > >> > >> .start is called when the first trip point is crossed the way up > >> .stop is called when the first trip point is crossed the way down > >> > >> - The core is responsible to start and stop the passive mitigation timer. > >> > >> - the governors do no longer us tz->passive > >> > >> The reset of the governor can happen at start or stop, as well as the > >> device cooling states. > > > > I have a patch that simply increments tz->passive when a passive trip > > point is passed on the way up and decrements it when a passive trip > > point is crossed on the way down. It appears to work reasonably well. > > Does it make the governors getting ride of it ? Or at least not changing > its value ?
Not yet, but I'm going to update it this way. The governors should not mess up with tz->passive IMV.
| |