Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Mon Jun 17 2013 - 05:19:21 EST
On 17 June 2013 14:38, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:43:27 +0200, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Many cpus share same policy structure and so iterating over all of
>> them isn't a very good idea. Either keep a mask of cpus already
>> iterated, copy policy->cpus to it on each iteration. If a cpu is
>> already done skip loop for it.
> This is the situation, which I wanted to avoid. Policy has the
> policy->cpus mask already implemented, but we don't know how/where to
> hook to them (one solution would be to start from cpu0, but for some
> reason I'm reluctant to do it in this way).
We could have started from any cpu. Result and performance would have
>> OR keep a list of policies. I would prefer the later (do it in a
>> separate patch), as this can be used later too.
> I will declare a boost_policy list at cpufreq.c. Then I will add policy
> to it, when cpufreq_add_dev() is called.
This list doesn't have anything to do with boost. Its just a list of
>> >> Again, I couldn't see how boost freqs are getting used? You have
>> >> probably made them part of normal freq range here and so they
>> >> might be used during normal operations. But we wanted it to be
>> >> used only when we have few cpus on... etc.. Where is that logic?
>> > The logic is as follow:
>> > - cpufreq_driver exports .attr field. When driver supports boost
>> > then two attributes are exported (even when boost is not enabled,
>> > but supported):
>> > - scaling_available_frequencies (only normal frequencies -
>> > this attribute is unchanged)
>> > - scaling_boost_frequencies - list possible boost
>> > frequencies.
>> > When boost is not supported - then only
>> > scaling_available_frequencies is exported (as it is done now).
>> You are missing the whole point behind keeping this patchset. Its not
>> about how to expose boost freqs to sysfs (that's what you are talking
>> about) but to use these frequencies on the fly.
> Two separate things:
> 1. I think, that scaling_available_frequencies [*] attribute has to
> stay unchanged (this is how userspace sees the API). Linus would
> we very unhappy :-) if we had changed public API.
I never asked to modify it. :)
> x86 guys, please correct me, but I think that [*] will be not
> changed (expanded) when Intel's HW boost is enabled at acpi-cpufreq.c
> The scaling_boost_frequencies is only visible when driver (and
> probably soc maintainer) is ready to handle boosting. It shows over
> clocked frequencies.
> 2. How we would control boost?
> - To enable this you must mark IDs for some freqs as
> - The cpufreq_boost.boost_supported flag needs to be true (set at
> cpufreq driver code)
> - One needs to enable boosting by sysfs or call
> cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(1); The latter will not work when
> cpufreq_driver->boost_supported is not set.
> I assume that when somebody takes those three above steps, then he is
> aware that boost is working on his machine.
All good until now.
> How one can control the boost? I'm now (on my setup) using thermal
> subsystem. I set proper trip points and when one of them is met, then
> boost is disabled. Moreover the thermal governor (stepwise) also
> reduces frequency.
> It works stable with v3.10 (with 3.8 there were some bugs - now they
> are fixed).
> The core acpi-cpufreq.c code hadn't been changed by me, so I assume
> that it will work as before.
That should adapt your patch in your patchset.
>> Some part of kernel
>> code would be setting these frequencies in real hardware. Who will
>> set these frequencies?
> Those freqs are set by ->target() callback (when allowed)
>From sysfs?? I thought we are going to have some automatic control
of this stuff from inside kernel. Userspace can't control when to run
on boost freqs.
>> On what basis? How do we ensure we don't
>> burn your chip?
> Thermal subsystem is a good example here. Another may be a
> governor, or even scheduler.
So, you are enabling boost from sysfs when your thermal framework
says, you can do it?
That's not going to work. There should be something inside kernel to
take care of this stuff. Otherwise a user may switch on boost accidentally
and may burn his chip.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/