Re: [PATCH v6 04/10] PM / EM: add support for other devices than CPUs in Energy Model

From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: nm@ti.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	viresh.kumar@linaro.org, liviu.dudau@arm.com,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
	bsegall@google.com, alyssa.rosenzweig@collabora.com,
	mka@chromium.org, amit.kucheria@verdurent.com,
	lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
	khilman@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com,
	steven.price@arm.com, cw00.choi@samsung.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-imx@nxp.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	orjan.eide@arm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	matthias.bgg@gmail.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	airlied@linux.ie, tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com, qperret@google.com,
	sboyd@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@pengutronix.de,
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
	shawnguo@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/10] PM / EM: add support for other devices than CPUs in Energy Model
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:57:45 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ff1c8cc5-f64d-6156-7d30-97b8426c6f99@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200423151250.GB65632@linaro.org>

On 4/23/20 4:12 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 09:42:04AM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>> Add support for other devices that CPUs. The registration function
>> does not require a valid cpumask pointer and is ready to handle new
>> devices. Some of the internal structures has been reorganized in order to
>> keep consistent view (like removing per_cpu pd pointers). To track usage
>> of the Energy Model structures, they are protected with kref.
> 
> Why not add the energy model structure in the struct device directly?

Do you mean this structure?
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/device.h#L537

and to put something like:
struct device {
...
	struct dev_pm_domain	*pm_domain;
#ifdef CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL
	struct em_perf_domain	*em_pd;
#endif
...
};

> 
> For instance for the em_cpu_get() function, the cpu id allows to retrieve the
> cpu device and then from there, the energy model instead of browsing another
> list. The em_device life cycle will be tied to the struct device.

That would be perfect.

> 
> Then when the struct device and the em_device are connected, add the debugfs
> with a struct device list for those which are energy aware, so you end up with
> a structure:
> 
> struct em_device {
> 	struct device *dev;
> 	struct list_head em_dev_list;
> };
> 
> (a global single dentry for debugfs to do a recursive delete is enough).
> 
> Locks when inspecting and add/removal called from the struct device release
> function. So no need of an extra refcounting.
> 
> Does it make sense?
> 

Indeed it looks much cleaner/simpler.

I will try to address this idea and get rid of refcounting.

This should be doable in this patch (4/10). In the v7 I will keep your
ACKs for other patches that you have already commented.

Thank you for your suggestions and review.

Regards,
Lukasz

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel