Re: [PATCH 1/4] PM / EM: and devices to Energy Model

[Quentin Perret]

On Monday 20 Jan 2020 at 16:20:49 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
> On 1/20/20 3:28 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Agreed, this looks a bit confusing. It should be trivial to make
> > em_dev_get() (or whatever we end up calling it) work for CPUs too,
> > though. And we could always have a em_cpu_get(int cpu) API that is a
> > basically a wrapper around em_dev_get() for convenience.
> 
> The problem not only here is that we have a CPU index 'int cpu'
> and if we ask for device like:
> 
> struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> 
> It might be not the same device that was used during the
> registration, when we had i.e. 4 CPUs for the same policy:
>
> int cpu_id = cpumask_first(policy->cpus);
> struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu_id);
> em_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb);
> 
> That's why the em_cpu_get() is different than em_get_pd(), mainly by:
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, em_span_cpus(em_pd)))
> 
> It won't be simple wrapper, let me think how it could be handled
> differently than it is now.

Right so I suppose the easiest solution would be to do the opposite of
my first suggestion. That is, make em_get_pd() call em_cpu_get() if the
device is a CPU device, or proceed to the PD list iteration for other
devices. And em_cpu_get() can remain as you originally suggested (that
is, iterate over the PDs and test the mask).

That should ensure em_get_pd() always works, em_cpu_get() is still there
handy for the scheduler and such, and the two EM lookup functions (for
CPUs or for devices) are kept cleanly separated.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,
Quentin