Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] EM / PM: Inefficient OPPs

[Lukasz Luba]

On 5/26/21 11:24 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote:

[snip]

> > What about disabling the OPP in the OPP core itself ? So every user 
> > will get the
> > same picture.
>
> There are SoCs which have OPPs every 100MHz even at high freq. They are
> used e.g. when thermal kicks in. We shouldn't disable them in generic
> frameworks like OPP. They might be used to provide enough CPU capacity,
> when temp is high. Imagine you have a board which does some work:
> sends and received some UDP packets. The board has been tested in oven
> that it will still be able to handle X messages/sec but using an OPP, 
> which in our heuristic is 'inefficient'. You cannot go above, because it
> will overheat the SoC, you might go below and find first 'efficient'
> OPP. You might harm this board performance if e.g. the OPP is 20% slower
> that this 'inefficient' which was tested by engineers.
>
> > > > Since the whole thing depends on EM and OPPs, I think we can 
> > > > actually do this.
> > > >
> > > > When the cpufreq driver registers with the EM core, lets find all the
> > > > Inefficient OPPs and disable them once and for all. Of course, this 
> > > > must be done
> > > > on voluntarily basis, a flag from the drivers will do. With this, we 
> > > > won't be
> > > > required to update any thing at any of the governors end.
> > >
> > > We still need to keep the inefficient OPPs for thermal reason.
> >
> > How will that benefit us if that OPP is never going to run anyway ? We 
> > won't be
>
> This OPP still might be used, the Vincent heuristic is just a 'hint'.
> Schedutil will check policy->max and could clamp the 'efficient'
> returned freq to first allowed, which might be 'inefficient'
>
> > cooling down the CPU then, isn't it ?
>
> The 'inefficient' OPP is called from our 'energy placement' angle. For
> other folks from automotive, industrial or IoT who are stress testing
> SoCs and boards in various circumstances, they might call our
> 'inefficient' perf state as 'efficient' - for they need.
>
> In our internal review I pointed that we are optimizing for mobiles with
> this and we might actually need a #ifdef, config or a switch for this
> heuristic.

But even in mobiles, we might start facing issues e.g. during high
resolution recording, when we just disable 'inefficient' OPPs,
which were used in such use case and higher temperature.