From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Cc: Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, vireshk@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org, nm@ti.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] scmi-cpufreq: get opp_shared_cpus from opp-v2 for EM Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:20:08 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201208112008.niesjrunxq2jz3kt@bogus> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201208072611.ptsqupv4y2wybs6p@vireshk-i7> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 12:56:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-12-20, 07:22, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > On 12/8/20 5:50 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 02-12-20, 17:23, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > >> nr_opp = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(cpu_dev); > > >> if (nr_opp <= 0) { > > >> - dev_dbg(cpu_dev, "OPP table is not ready, deferring probe\n"); > > >> - ret = -EPROBE_DEFER; > > >> - goto out_free_opp; > > >> + ret = handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add(handle, cpu_dev); > > >> + if (ret) { > > >> + dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to add opps to the device\n"); > > >> + goto out_free_cpumask; > > >> + } > > >> + > > >> + ret = dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, opp_shared_cpus); > > >> + if (ret) { > > >> + dev_err(cpu_dev, "%s: failed to mark OPPs as shared: %d\n", > > >> + __func__, ret); > > >> + goto out_free_cpumask; > > >> + } > > >> + > > > > > > Why do we need to call above two after calling > > > dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() ? > > > > Sorry, I am not sure to understand your question here. If there are no opps for > > a device we want to add them to it > > Earlier we used to call handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add() and > dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() before calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(), why is > the order changed now ? > > > I am not sure why they would be duplicated in your case. I though > device_opps_add() is responsible for dynamically adding the OPPs here. > It is because of per-CPU vs per domain drama here. Imagine a system with 4 CPUs which the firmware puts in individual domains while they all are in the same perf domain and hence OPP is marked shared in DT. Since this probe gets called for all the cpus, we need to skip adding OPPs for the last 3(add only for 1st one and mark others as shared). If we attempt to add OPPs on second cpu probe, it *will* shout as duplicate OPP as we would have already marked it as shared table with the first cpu. Am I missing anything ? I suggested this as Nicola saw OPP duplicate warnings when he was hacking up this patch. > > otherwise no need as they would be duplicated. > > > And we don't check the return value of > > > the below call anymore, moreover we have to call it twice now. Yes, that looks wrong, we need to add the check for non zero values, but .... > > > > This second get_opp_count is required such that we register em with the correct > > opp number after having added them. Without this the opp_count would not be correct. > ... I have a question here. Why do you need to call em_dev_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb, opp_shared_cpus..) on each CPU ? Why can't that be done once for unique opp_shared_cpus ? The whole drama of per-CPU vs perf domain is to have energy model and if feeding it opp_shared_cpus once is not sufficient, then something is wrong or simply duplicated or just not necessary IMO. > What if the count is still 0 ? What about deferred probe we were doing earlier ? OK, you made me think with that question. I think the check was original added for deferred probe but then scmi core was changed to add the cpufreq device only after everything needed is ready. So the condition must never occur now. -- Regards, Sudeep
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Cc: nm@ti.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, sboyd@kernel.org, vireshk@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@arm.com>, chris.redpath@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] scmi-cpufreq: get opp_shared_cpus from opp-v2 for EM Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:20:08 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201208112008.niesjrunxq2jz3kt@bogus> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201208072611.ptsqupv4y2wybs6p@vireshk-i7> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 12:56:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-12-20, 07:22, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > On 12/8/20 5:50 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 02-12-20, 17:23, Nicola Mazzucato wrote: > > >> nr_opp = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(cpu_dev); > > >> if (nr_opp <= 0) { > > >> - dev_dbg(cpu_dev, "OPP table is not ready, deferring probe\n"); > > >> - ret = -EPROBE_DEFER; > > >> - goto out_free_opp; > > >> + ret = handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add(handle, cpu_dev); > > >> + if (ret) { > > >> + dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to add opps to the device\n"); > > >> + goto out_free_cpumask; > > >> + } > > >> + > > >> + ret = dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, opp_shared_cpus); > > >> + if (ret) { > > >> + dev_err(cpu_dev, "%s: failed to mark OPPs as shared: %d\n", > > >> + __func__, ret); > > >> + goto out_free_cpumask; > > >> + } > > >> + > > > > > > Why do we need to call above two after calling > > > dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() ? > > > > Sorry, I am not sure to understand your question here. If there are no opps for > > a device we want to add them to it > > Earlier we used to call handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add() and > dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() before calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(), why is > the order changed now ? > > > I am not sure why they would be duplicated in your case. I though > device_opps_add() is responsible for dynamically adding the OPPs here. > It is because of per-CPU vs per domain drama here. Imagine a system with 4 CPUs which the firmware puts in individual domains while they all are in the same perf domain and hence OPP is marked shared in DT. Since this probe gets called for all the cpus, we need to skip adding OPPs for the last 3(add only for 1st one and mark others as shared). If we attempt to add OPPs on second cpu probe, it *will* shout as duplicate OPP as we would have already marked it as shared table with the first cpu. Am I missing anything ? I suggested this as Nicola saw OPP duplicate warnings when he was hacking up this patch. > > otherwise no need as they would be duplicated. > > > And we don't check the return value of > > > the below call anymore, moreover we have to call it twice now. Yes, that looks wrong, we need to add the check for non zero values, but .... > > > > This second get_opp_count is required such that we register em with the correct > > opp number after having added them. Without this the opp_count would not be correct. > ... I have a question here. Why do you need to call em_dev_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb, opp_shared_cpus..) on each CPU ? Why can't that be done once for unique opp_shared_cpus ? The whole drama of per-CPU vs perf domain is to have energy model and if feeding it opp_shared_cpus once is not sufficient, then something is wrong or simply duplicated or just not necessary IMO. > What if the count is still 0 ? What about deferred probe we were doing earlier ? OK, you made me think with that question. I think the check was original added for deferred probe but then scmi core was changed to add the cpufreq device only after everything needed is ready. So the condition must never occur now. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-08 11:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-02 17:23 [PATCH v4 0/4] CPUFreq: Add support for opp-sharing cpus Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings/opp: Update documentation for opp-shared Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 4:29 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 4:29 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 7:15 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 7:15 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] opp/of: Allow empty opp-table with opp-shared Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] scmi-cpufreq: get opp_shared_cpus from opp-v2 for EM Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 5:50 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 5:50 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 7:22 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 7:22 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 7:26 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 7:26 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 10:58 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 10:58 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 11:01 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 11:01 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-08 11:21 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-12-08 11:21 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-12-08 11:20 ` Sudeep Holla [this message] 2020-12-08 11:20 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-12-08 11:34 ` Lukasz Luba 2020-12-08 11:34 ` Lukasz Luba 2020-12-08 12:22 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-12-08 12:22 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-12-08 13:17 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-08 13:17 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-09 5:45 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-09 5:45 ` Viresh Kumar 2020-12-09 9:20 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-09 9:20 ` Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-09 9:41 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-12-09 9:41 ` Sudeep Holla 2020-12-02 17:23 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] cpufreq: blacklist Arm Vexpress platforms in cpufreq-dt-platdev Nicola Mazzucato 2020-12-02 17:23 ` Nicola Mazzucato
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20201208112008.niesjrunxq2jz3kt@bogus \ --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \ --cc=chris.redpath@arm.com \ --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \ --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \ --cc=nicola.mazzucato@arm.com \ --cc=nm@ti.com \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \ --cc=sboyd@kernel.org \ --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \ --cc=vireshk@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.