Re: [PATCH v1 07/16] thermal: gov_power_allocator: Eliminate a redundant variable

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 23/04/2024 20:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 8:00 PM Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 23/04/2024 19:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 7:35 PM Daniel Lezcano
> > > <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 10/04/2024 18:12, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Notice that the passive field in struct thermal_zone_device is not
> > > > > used by the Power Allocator governor itself and so the ordering of
> > > > > its updates with respect to allow_maximum_power() or allocate_power()
> > > > > does not matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Accordingly, make power_allocator_manage() update that field right
> > > > > before returning, which allows the current value of it to be passed
> > > > > directly to allow_maximum_power() without using the additional update
> > > > > variable that can be dropped.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > The step_wise and the power allocator are changing the tz->passive
> > > > values, so telling the core to start and stop the passive mitigation timer.
> > > >
> > > > It looks strange that a plugin controls the core internal and not the
> > > > opposite.
> > > >
> > > > I'm wondering if it would not make sense to have the following ops:
> > > >
> > > >           .start
> > > >           .stop
> > > >
> > > > .start is called when the first trip point is crossed the way up
> > > > .stop is called when the first trip point is crossed the way down
> > > >
> > > >     - The core is responsible to start and stop the passive mitigation timer.
> > > >
> > > >     - the governors do no longer us tz->passive
> > > >
> > > > The reset of the governor can happen at start or stop, as well as the
> > > > device cooling states.
> > >
> > > I have a patch that simply increments tz->passive when a passive trip
> > > point is passed on the way up and decrements it when a passive trip
> > > point is crossed on the way down.  It appears to work reasonably well.
> >
> > Does it make the governors getting ride of it ? Or at least not changing
> > its value ?
>
> Not yet, but I'm going to update it this way.  The governors should
> not mess up with tz->passive IMV.

+1

--
<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