On 30/01/2025 21:53, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
Hi, Daniel,
On 30.01.2025 19:24, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 30/01/2025 11:30, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
On 30.01.2025 12:07, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:08:03AM +0200, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
Hi, Daniel,
[ ... ]
Would the IP need some cycles to capture the temperature accurately
after the
clock is enabled ?
There is nothing about this mentioned about this in the HW manual of the
RZ/G3S SoC. The only points mentioned are as described in the driver code:
- wait at least 3us after each IIO channel read
- wait at least 30us after enabling the sensor
- wait at least 50us after setting OE bit in TSU_SM
For this I chose to have it implemented as proposed.
IMO, disabling/enabling the clock between two reads through the pm
runtime may
not be a good thing, especially if the system enters a thermal situation
where
it has to mitigate.
Without any testing capturing the temperatures and compare between the
always-on
and on/off, it is hard to say if it is true or not. Up to you to test
that or
not. If you think it is fine, then let's go with it.
I tested it with and w/o the runtime PM and on/off support (so, everything
ON from the probe) and the reported temperature values were similar.
Did you remove the roundup to 0.5°C ?
I did the testing as suggested and, this time, collected results and
compared side by side. I read the temperature for 10 minutes, 60 seconds
after the Linux prompt showed up. There is, indeed, a slight difference b/w
the 2 cases.
When the runtime PM doesn't touch the clocks on read the reported
temperature varies b/w 53-54 degrees while when the runtime PM
enables/disables the clocks a single read reported 55 degrees, the rest
reported 54 degrees.
I plotted the results side by side here:
https://i2.paste.pics/f07eaeddc2ccc3c6695fe5056b52f4a2.png?trs=0a0eaab99bb59ebcb10051eb298f437c7cd50c16437a87392aebc16cd9013e18&rand=vWXm2VTrbt
Please let me know how do you consider it.
Thanks for taking the time to provide a figure
Testing thermal can be painful because it should be done under certain
conditions.
I guess there was no particular work load on the system when running the
tests.
At the first glance, it seems, without the pm runtime, the measurement
is more precise as it catches more thermal changes. But the test does
not give information about the thermal behavior under stress. And one
second sampling is too long to really figure it out.
In the kernel source tree, there is a tool to read the temperature in an
optimized manner, you may want to use it to read the temperature at a
higher rate. It is located in tools/thermal/thermometer
Compiling is a bit fuzzy ATM, so until it is fixed, here are the steps:
(you should install libconfig-dev and libnl-3-dev packages).
cd $LINUX_DIR/tools/thermal/lib
make
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:$LINUX_DIR/tools/thermal/lib
cd $LINUX_DIR/tools
make thermometer
Then change directory:
cd $LINUX_DIR/tools/thermal/thermometer
Run the tool:
./thermometer -o out -c t.conf -l DEBUG -- <my_command>
The content of the configuration file t.conf is:
thermal-zones = (
{ name = "cpu[0_9].*-thermal";
polling = 100; }
)
All the captured data will be in the 'out' directory
For 'my_command', I suggest to use a script containing:
sleep 10; dhrystone -t 1 -r 120; sleep 10
If you need the dhrystone binary, let me know.
The thermal zone device tree configuration should be changed to use a
65°C passive trip point instead of 100°C (and the kernel setup with the
step wise governor as default).
The resulting figure from the temperature should show a flat temperature
figure during 10 seconds, then the temperature increasing until reaching
the temperature threshold of 65°C, the temperature stabilizing around
it, then followed by a temperature decreasing when the test finishes.
If the temperature does not reach the limit, decrease the trip point
temperature or increase the dhrystone duration (the -r 120 option)
At this point, you should the test with and without pm runtime but in
order to have consistent results, you should wait ~20 minutes between
two tests.
The shape of the figures will give the immediate information about how
the mitigation vs thermal sensor vs cooling device behave.
Additionally, you can enable the thermal DEBUGFS option and add the
collected information statistics from /sys/kernel/debug/thermal/*** in
the results.
Hope that helps
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
