From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754923AbbCBRlD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:41:03 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48139 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754808AbbCBRk6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:40:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 17:40:54 +0000 From: Javi Merino To: Eduardo Valentin Cc: "rui.zhang@intel.com" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Punit Agrawal , "lina.iyer@linaro.org" , "broonie@kernel.org" , "tixy@linaro.org" , Kapileshwar Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Subject: The power allocator thermal governor Message-ID: <20150302174054.GB15351@e104805> References: <1425316643-31991-1-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> <20150302172847.GD8925@developer.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150302172847.GD8925@developer.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:28:50PM +0000, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:17:18PM +0000, Javi Merino wrote: > > *** BLURB HERE *** > > > > Hi linux-pm, > > > > Introduce the power allocator governor, a thermal governor that > > allocates device power to control temperature. This series is based > > on branch "linus" of Eduardo's linux-soc-thermal tree: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/evalenti/linux-soc-thermal.git > > > > Changes since v2: > > - Address Eduardo's review > > + Turn variable-size array in divvy_up_power() into a > > devm_kcalloc() as suggested by Eduardo > > + Remove #ifdeffery from thermal_core.c as suggested by Eduardo > > - Bring back cpufreq's CPUFREQ_UPDATE_POLICY_CPU notifier in order > > to update the cpu device in cpu_cooling.c when cpufreq changes > > the policy cpu. > > > Can you please elaborate a bit more on the issue you saw to decide to > bring this functionality back? I explained it in patch 5 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: update the cpu device when cpufreq updates the policy cpu"): When cpufreq changes the policy cpu, the cpufreq cooling device needs to update the cached cpu device accordingly. > Can we keep the cpufreq changes as a separated thread? To me if the > issue happens to power allocator, it also happens to the other > governors. The cached cpu device was introduced in patch 98ea0816118f ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API") in your tree. I'm posting it here because it only affects doesn't affect other governors. > I don't want to block power allocator due to the cpufreq > changes. You don't have to. It's the last two patches precisely for that. You can merge everything up to patch 3 without depending on cpufreq changes. > Besides, cpufreq changes should go via the proper cpufreq tree, not the > thermal tree. It's a change to cpu_cooling (patch 5) that needs a revert of cpufreq (patch 4). The change to cpu_cooling depends on the patches already in your branch. So you will have to carry this patch in your branch with an Ack from the cpufreq maintainers. Cheers, Javi