From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A66C43467 for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3BB72158C for ; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 14:51:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1602859879; bh=b8KbWzrobiYR6wjteUrVIZU5c42BIgnadkyzhwSM4E8=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=tRsj2lh5d/9C0Wd4WnlC/+BkGXHOXbuYwEzPGEcYvkm5gThlimqx6d1vC1uRxmQqG 5m3sx8MuH6khZnQ0Icm3Z6At7EhptZDOsyI+db3qk9UFDXlhiwy2hPyNaNgQdnF/71 u2iHEgjzPbqOVMs5yuqH6STlzBU+yDIvyUzy/Q+Q= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2407671AbgJPOvP (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:51:15 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-f65.google.com ([209.85.161.65]:46180 "EHLO mail-oo1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2407130AbgJPOvO (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:51:14 -0400 Received: by mail-oo1-f65.google.com with SMTP id c25so665059ooe.13; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:51:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OvZLUwxXbsYt5GY0+KWs0O5JpZUG+90mhJIF+9eGBQQ=; b=HZ5HjjaHeMqkRkQRGWyxpyLo6md2ywah9Am0X4mCz9PiwCvZkURHi2+JpDQAzMOHbJ KvLg5zwcajmhlTaPZG3o+IQG8CPeWrHtnOYyHFDJNfPzydWbp1AtiwvpNXipG8ywBPdZ ZpuJANiYeJIuELv3jttRnv4kXGMPOUMfbuqYhZuRHZb9mobhflEqxaNKaokltv9P60S1 yt+PU0IU6moOz8ZSYI1jjx1ii9U6tZ6NFe6I/PvNDFuWSt1blSu7jSsCpxVbHRGg8/Jt MReHVK/ACfQNIShYaUGKGNDfRZB2CUj7IEoc/VccBQnC6ITPIFWG2Js2xHBws9syKOHW FC3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532puJBVTm3DJeNjkiBQYrctGvAVkSLmyjSnTi9JERcs0G4ibG5k kw2nqg89HVhcDulfhzq+QAt7KV0oSlLZThyqWnY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8jW44BfJvCmZodx50dYHRYCufqM/DoXtN34Tthnu+zshnry25BklsWhEZmu4o/uyug2ms+xRaxomIrI0Qr1s= X-Received: by 2002:a4a:dc0d:: with SMTP id p13mr3036465oov.2.1602859873680; Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:51:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201006122024.14539-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <8be66efd-7833-2c8a-427d-b0055c2f6ec1@linaro.org> <97e5368b-228d-eca1-85a5-b918dfcfd336@redhat.com> <63dfa6a1-0424-7985-7803-756c0c5cc4a5@redhat.com> <87d9a808-39d6-4949-c4f9-6a80d14a3768@redhat.com> <943531a7-74d6-7c7f-67bc-2645b3ba7b8a@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <943531a7-74d6-7c7f-67bc-2645b3ba7b8a@redhat.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 16:51:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation: Add documentation for new performance_profile sysfs class (Also Re: [PATCH 0/4] powercap/dtpm: Add the DTPM framework) To: Hans de Goede Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Daniel Lezcano , Srinivas Pandruvada , Lukasz Luba , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , "Zhang, Rui" , Bastien Nocera , Mark Pearson , "Limonciello, Mario" , Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , Mark Gross , Elia Devito , Benjamin Berg , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 1:11 PM Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > Hi, > > On 10/14/20 5:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 4:06 PM Hans de Goede wrote: > >> On 10/14/20 3:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > >>> First, a common place to register a DPTF system profile seems to be > >>> needed and, as I said above, I wouldn't expect more than one such > >>> thing to be present in the system at any given time, so it may be > >>> registered along with the list of supported profiles and user space > >>> will have to understand what they mean. > >> > >> Mostly Ack, I would still like to have an enum for DPTF system > >> profiles in the kernel and have a single piece of code map that > >> enum to profile names. This enum can then be extended as > >> necessary, but I want to avoid having one driver use > >> "Performance" and the other "performance" or one using > >> "performance-balanced" and the other "balanced-performance", etc. > >> > >> With the goal being that new drivers use existing values from > >> the enum as much as possible, but we extend it where necessary. > > > > IOW, just a table of known profile names with specific indices assigned to them. > > Yes. > > > This sounds reasonable. > > > >>> Second, irrespective of the above, it may be useful to have a > >>> consistent way to pass performance-vs-power preference information > >>> from user space to different parts of the kernel so as to allow them > >>> to adjust their operation and this could be done with a system-wide > >>> power profile attribute IMO. > >> > >> I agree, which is why I tried to tackle both things in one go, > >> but as you said doing both in 1 API is probably not the best idea. > >> So I believe we should park this second issue for now and revisit it > >> when we find a need for it. > > > > Agreed. > > > >> Do you have any specific userspace API in mind for the > >> DPTF system profile selection? > > > > Not really. > > So before /sys/power/profile was mentioned, but that seems more like > a thing which should have a set of fixed possible values, iow that is > out of scope for this discussion. Yes. > Since we all seem to agree that this is something which we need > specifically for DPTF profiles maybe just add: > > /sys/power/dptf_current_profile (rw) > /sys/power/dptf_available_profiles (ro) > > (which will only be visible if a dptf-profile handler > has been registered) ? > > Or more generic and thus better (in case other platforms > later need something similar) I think, mirror the: > > /sys/bus/cpu/devices/cpu#/cpufreq/energy_performance_* bits > for a system-wide energy-performance setting, so we get: > > /sys/power/energy_performance_preference > /sys/power/energy_performance_available_preferences But this is not about energy vs performance only in general, is it? > (again only visible when applicable) ? > > I personally like the second option best. But I would put it under /sys/firmware/ instead of /sys/power/ and I would call it something like platform_profile (and platform_profile_choices or similar). Cheers!