From: Seiichi Ikarashi <s.ikarashi@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Radivoje Jovanovic <radivoje.jovanovic@intel.com>,
Mathias Krause <minipli@googlemail.com>,
Ajay Thomas <ajay.thomas.david.rajamanickam@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:45:46 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56724C0A.8000101@jp.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1450184532-21150-2-git-send-email-prarit@redhat.com>
On 2015-12-15 22:02, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> The MSR_PKG_POWER_INFO register (Intel ASDM, section 14.9.3
> "Package RAPL Domain") provides a maximum time window which the
> system can support. This window is read-only and is currently
> not examined when setting the time windows for the package.
I have been having a question here long time.
Maximum Time Window (bits 53:48) in MSR_PKG_POWER_INFO is only
6-bit length even though Time Window for Power Limit #1 (bits 23:17)
and Time Window for Power Limit #2 (bits 55:49) in MSR_PKG_POWER_LIMIT
are both 7-bit length, not 6.
Do Intel guys have an answer for it?
The patch itself looks good to me.
Just minor comments below:
> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
> index cc97f08..f765b2c 100644
> --- a/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
> +++ b/drivers/powercap/intel_rapl.c
> @@ -493,13 +493,42 @@ static int get_current_power_limit(struct powercap_zone *power_zone, int id,
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int get_max_time_window(struct powercap_zone *power_zone, int id,
The 2nd arg "id" is not necessary.
> + u64 *data)
> +{
> + struct rapl_domain *rd;
> + int ret = 0;
> + u64 val;
> +
> + get_online_cpus();
> + rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(power_zone);
> +
> + if (rapl_read_data_raw(rd, MAX_TIME_WINDOW, true, &val))
rapl_read_data_raw() can return -EINVAL and -ENODEV other than -EIO.
> + ret = -EIO;
Is it OK to limit ret to -EIO here?
> + else
> + *data = val;
> +
> + put_online_cpus();
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static int set_time_window(struct powercap_zone *power_zone, int id,
> u64 window)
> {
> struct rapl_domain *rd;
> int ret = 0;
> + u64 max_window;
>
> get_online_cpus();
> + ret = get_max_time_window(power_zone, id, &max_window);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out;
> +
> + if (window > max_window) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> rd = power_zone_to_rapl_domain(power_zone);
> switch (rd->rpl[id].prim_id) {
> case PL1_ENABLE:
> @@ -511,6 +540,7 @@ static int set_time_window(struct powercap_zone *power_zone, int id,
> default:
> ret = -EINVAL;
> }
> +out:
> put_online_cpus();
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -590,6 +620,7 @@ static struct powercap_zone_constraint_ops constraint_ops = {
> .set_time_window_us = set_time_window,
> .get_time_window_us = get_time_window,
> .get_max_power_uw = get_max_power,
> + .get_max_time_window_us = get_max_time_window,
> .get_name = get_constraint_name,
> };
>
> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c b/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> index 84419af..7d77b83 100644
> --- a/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> +++ b/drivers/powercap/powercap_sys.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static ssize_t store_constraint_##_attr(struct device *dev,\
> int err; \
> u64 value; \
> struct powercap_zone *power_zone = to_powercap_zone(dev); \
> - int id; \
> + int id, ret; \
> struct powercap_zone_constraint *pconst;\
> \
> if (!sscanf(dev_attr->attr.name, "constraint_%d_", &id)) \
> @@ -113,8 +113,10 @@ static ssize_t store_constraint_##_attr(struct device *dev,\
> if (err) \
> return -EINVAL; \
> if (pconst && pconst->ops && pconst->ops->set_##_attr) { \
> - if (!pconst->ops->set_##_attr(power_zone, id, value)) \
> + ret = pconst->ops->set_##_attr(power_zone, id, value); \
> + if (!ret) \
> return count; \
> + return ret; \
An opposite question to above.
Is it OK not to limit the return value to -EINVAL here?
Do you want this function to return -EIO or something?
> } \
> \
> return -ENODATA; \
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-17 5:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-15 13:02 [PATCH 0/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement time window checks Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-15 13:02 ` [PATCH 1/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-17 5:45 ` Seiichi Ikarashi [this message]
2015-12-17 12:26 ` Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-15 13:02 ` [PATCH 2/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement check for minimum time window Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-15 13:02 ` [PATCH 3/3] powercap, intel_rapl, Add ignore_max_window_check module parameter for broken BIOSes Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-18 5:50 ` Seiichi Ikarashi
2015-12-18 12:23 ` Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-21 14:50 ` [PATCH 0/3 v2] powercap, intel_rapl, implement time window checks Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-21 14:50 ` [PATCH 1/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-21 14:50 ` [PATCH 2/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement check for minimum time window Prarit Bhargava
2015-12-21 14:50 ` [PATCH 3/3] powercap, intel_rapl, Add ignore_max_time_window_check module parameter for broken BIOSes Prarit Bhargava
2016-01-21 16:15 [PATCH 0/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement time window checks Prarit Bhargava
2016-01-21 16:15 ` [PATCH 1/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window Prarit Bhargava
2016-01-22 0:27 ` Seiichi Ikarashi
2016-01-22 16:26 ` Prarit Bhargava
2016-01-25 0:44 [PATCH 0/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement time window checks [v3] Prarit Bhargava
2016-01-25 0:44 ` [PATCH 1/3] powercap, intel_rapl, implement get_max_time_window Prarit Bhargava
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=56724C0A.8000101@jp.fujitsu.com \
--to=s.ikarashi@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=ajay.thomas.david.rajamanickam@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minipli@googlemail.com \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=radivoje.jovanovic@intel.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
/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).