Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] thermal: processor_thermal: Suport workload hint

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 9:44 PM srinivas pandruvada
<srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On Tue, 2023-09-12 at 16:09 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 2:23 AM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > <srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
>
> [...]
>
> > > --
> >
> > There is a slight issue with the patch ordering in this series,
> > because the interface to enable the interrupt should only be provided
> > after implementing the interrupt handlers.  I don't think that anyone
> > will apply the series partially and try to enable the feature,
> > though.
> Thanks!
>
> >
> > Also, I'm not actually sure if proc_thermal_wt_intr_callback() can
> > run
> > safely against the work item scheduled in proc_thermal_irq_handler()
> > in case the workload hint one triggers along with a thermal threshold
> > one.  I think that the access to MMIO is cached, so what if they both
> > try to update the same cache line at the same time?  Or are they
> > guaranteed to be different cache lines?
> These two registers are 90 cache lines apart. Looking at all the
> registers on this bar for status offsets, they are several cache lines
> apart. Also this bar is non prefetchable, so continuous data can't be
> fetched ahead.

OK

> >
> > Anyway, tentatively applied as 6.7 material, but I've changed the
> > second patch somewhat, because I couldn't convince myself that the
> > implicit type conversions in
> > processor_thermal_mbox_interrupt_config()
> > would always do the right thing regardless of the numbers involved,
> > so
> > please check the result in my bleeding-edge branch.
> >
> If I diff, there is only one change in processor_thermal_mbox.c. Tested
> that change and works fine.

Good, thanks!