On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 17:19:04 +0000 "R, Durgadoss" <durgadoss.r@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi, > Hi Lukasz, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-pm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-pm- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukasz Majewski > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 2:20 PM > > To: Viresh Kumar; Rafael J. Wysocki; Zhang, Rui; Eduardo Valentin > > Cc: cpufreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux PM list; Jonghwa Lee; Lukasz > > Majewski; l.majewski@xxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel; Andre Przywara; > > Daniel Lezcano; Kukjin Kim; Myungjoo Ham > > Subject: [PATCH v5 5/7] thermal:boost: Automatic enable/disable of > > BOOST feature > > > > This patch provides auto disable/enable operation for boost. When > > any defined trip point is passed, the boost is disabled. > > In that moment thermal monitor workqueue is woken up and it monitors > > if the device temperature drops below 75% of the smallest trip > > point. When device cools down, the boost is enabled again. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Myungjoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > Changes for v5: > > - Move boost disable code from cpu_cooling.c to thermal_core.c > > (to handle_non_critical_trips) > > - Extent struct thermal_zone_device by adding overheated bool flag > > - Implement auto enable of boost after device cools down > > - Introduce boost_polling flag, which indicates if thermal uses > > it's predefined pool delay or has woken up thermal workqueue only > > to wait until device cools down. > > > > Changes for v4: > > - New patch > > > > drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c | 31 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/thermal.h | > > 2 ++ 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c index d755440..12adbad 100644 > > --- a/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/thermal_core.c > > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ > > #include <linux/idr.h> > > #include <linux/thermal.h> > > #include <linux/reboot.h> > > +#include <linux/cpufreq.h> > > #include <net/netlink.h> > > #include <net/genetlink.h> > > > > @@ -326,6 +327,15 @@ static void monitor_thermal_zone(struct > > thermal_zone_device *tz) > > static void handle_non_critical_trips(struct thermal_zone_device > > *tz, int trip, enum thermal_trip_type trip_type) > > { > > + if (cpufreq_boost_supported()) { > > + tz->overheated = true; > > + cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(0); > > + if (!tz->polling_delay) { > > + tz->boost_polling = true; > > + tz->polling_delay = 1000; > > + } > > + } > > + > > if (tz->governor) > > tz->governor->throttle(tz, trip); > > } > > @@ -453,6 +463,27 @@ static void thermal_zone_device_check(struct > > work_struct *work) > > struct thermal_zone_device *tz = container_of(work, struct > > thermal_zone_device, > > poll_queue.work); > > + long trip_temp; > > + > > + if (cpufreq_boost_supported() && tz->overheated) { > > Not all thermal drivers support trip points. So, we first need a > if (tz->ops->get_trip_temp) check here. Ok, thanks for tip. Bluntly speaking, I thought, that all SoCs supported by thermal set trip points. > > > + tz->ops->get_trip_temp(tz, 0, &trip_temp); > > + /* > > + * Enable boost again only when current > > temperature is less > > + * than 75% of trip_temp[0] > > + */ > > + if ((tz->temperature + (trip_temp >> 2)) < > > trip_temp) { > > Another way would be to use the get_trend APIs for this thermal zone. > If the trend is cooling we can re-enable boost otherwise not. Trend evaluation seems like a good complementary idea. However, I would also like to have the relative temperature drop measurement (if possible) like above (to 75% of the first trip point). Then I would be more confident, that everything cooled down and that I can start boost again. > > > + tz->overheated = false; > > + if (tz->boost_polling) { > > + tz->boost_polling = false; > > + tz->polling_delay = 0; > > + monitor_thermal_zone(tz); > > + } > > Overall, I believe this will work well only if the thermal zone is > CPU. My assumption: When I enable boost at CPU, then I also shall cool down the CPU. And the CPU zone seemed a natural choice. However I might be missing something, so hints are welcome. > > Another suggestion is: We tried hard to remove all throttling logic > from thermal_core.c. By throttling logic you mean: if ((tz->temperature + (trip_temp >> 2)) and other conditions (like trend measurement)? > May be we should include this kind of logic in > step_wise.c ? It sounds interesting (since ->throttle at thermal_core.c is called always when needed), but I'm afraid of a code duplication when one use Boost with fair_share or other thermal governor. > Rui/Eduardo: Any thoughts on this ? > > Thanks, > Durga > > + > > + cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(1); > > + return; > > + } > > + } > > + > > thermal_zone_device_update(tz); > > } > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/thermal.h b/include/linux/thermal.h > > index a386a1c..f1aa3c2 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/thermal.h > > +++ b/include/linux/thermal.h > > @@ -172,6 +172,8 @@ struct thermal_zone_device { > > int emul_temperature; > > int passive; > > unsigned int forced_passive; > > + bool overheated; > > + bool boost_polling; > > const struct thermal_zone_device_ops *ops; > > const struct thermal_zone_params *tzp; > > struct thermal_governor *governor; > > -- > > 1.7.10.4 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" > > in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
