From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@arm.com>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
vireshk@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
sudeep.holla@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:32:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201008110241.dcyxdtqqj7slwmnc@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2417d7b5-bc58-fa30-192c-e5991ec22ce0@arm.com>
On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
>
> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol that
> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware can
> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they
> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls
> to cpus, gpus, etc.
>
> Let's focus on cpus.
>
> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w)
> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains.
>
> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer
> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g.
> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the
> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus
> or set of cpus.
> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the
> requests it receives on these M controls.
>
> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the
> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform
> (EAS and thermal, for example).
>
> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system
> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while
> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the same
> clock domain).
If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the
same cpufreq policy.
> This performance dependency information is essential for some
> components that take information from the cpufreq policy.
>
> To restore functionality we can use the optional node
> 'cpu-performance-dependencies' in dt which will provide such dependency
> information and we can add a new cpumask 'dependency_cpus' in policy.
>
> Hope it gives some clarity.
Some, but I am still confused :(
Can you give a real example, with exact number of CPUs, how they share
clocks/voltage domains and what else the firmware needs in terms of
performance-domains ? That may make it easier for me to understand it.
--
viresh
_______________________________________________
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:[~2020-10-08 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-24 9:53 [PATCH v2 0/2] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu performance dependencies Nicola Mazzucato
2020-09-24 9:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: Add devicetree binding for cpu-performance-dependencies Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-08 13:42 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-09-24 9:53 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-06 7:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-07 12:58 ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-08 11:02 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2020-10-08 15:03 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-08 15:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-08 17:08 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-12 16:06 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-08 16:00 ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-09 5:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-09 11:10 ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-09 11:17 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-09 14:01 ` Rob Herring
2020-10-09 15:28 ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-12 4:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-12 10:22 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-10-12 10:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-12 11:05 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-10-12 10:59 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-12 13:48 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-10-12 16:30 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-12 18:19 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-10-12 22:01 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-13 11:53 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-13 12:39 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-15 15:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-15 18:38 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-12 13:59 ` Rob Herring
2020-10-12 16:02 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-12 15:54 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-12 15:49 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-10-12 16:52 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-10-12 17:18 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-10-14 4:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-14 9:11 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-10-19 8:50 ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-19 9:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-19 13:36 ` Nicola Mazzucato
2020-10-20 10:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-10-13 13:53 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-10-14 4:20 ` Viresh Kumar
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=20201008110241.dcyxdtqqj7slwmnc@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--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=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).