[PATCH v3 3/5] ARM: topology: Update cpu_power according to DT information
From: Peter Zijlstra <hidden>
Date: 2012-07-02 09:11:59
Also in:
linux-devicetree, lkml
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 17:19 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF
+struct cpu_efficiency {
+ const char *compatible;
+ unsigned long efficiency;
+};
+
+/*
+ * Table of relative efficiency of each processors
+ * The efficiency value must fit in 20bit. The final
+ * cpu_scale value must be in the range
+ * 0 < cpu_scale < 2*SCHED_POWER_SCALE.This wants a why.. I suspects its to do with keeping capacity on 1.
+ * Processors that are not defined in the table,
+ * use the default SCHED_POWER_SCALE value for cpu_scale.
+ */
+struct cpu_efficiency table_efficiency[] = {
+ {"arm,cortex-a15", 3891},
+ {"arm,cortex-a7", 2048},
+ {NULL, },
+};
+
+struct cpu_capacity {
+ unsigned long hwid;
+ unsigned long capacity;
+};
+
+struct cpu_capacity *cpu_capacity;
+
+unsigned long middle_capacity = 1;
It would be very nice to not have to learn to read device-tree nonsense
to work on the scheduler, how about something like this:?
/*
* Iterate all cpus and set the efficiency (as per table_efficiency)
* also calculate the middle efficiency:
* (max{eff_i} - min{eff_i}) / 2
* This is later used to scale the cpu_power field such that an
* 'average' cpu is of middle power. Also see the comments near
* table_efficiency[] and update_cpu_power().
*/
+static void __init parse_dt_topology(void)
+{
+ struct cpu_efficiency *cpu_eff;
+ struct device_node *cn = NULL;
+ unsigned long min_capacity = (unsigned long)(-1);
+ unsigned long max_capacity = 0;
+ unsigned long capacity = 0;
+ int alloc_size, cpu = 0;
+
+ alloc_size = nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(struct cpu_capacity);
+ cpu_capacity = (struct cpu_capacity *)kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_NOWAIT);
+
+ while ((cn = of_find_node_by_type(cn, "cpu"))) {
+ const u32 *rate, *reg;
+ int len;
+
+ if (cpu >= num_possible_cpus())
+ break;
+
+ for (cpu_eff = table_efficiency; cpu_eff->compatible; cpu_eff++)
+ if (of_device_is_compatible(cn, cpu_eff->compatible))
+ break;
+
+ if (cpu_eff->compatible == NULL)
+ continue;
+
+ rate = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len);
+ if (!rate || len != 4) {
+ pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n",
+ cn->full_name);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ reg = of_get_property(cn, "reg", &len);
+ if (!reg || len != 4) {
+ pr_err("%s missing reg property\n", cn->full_name);
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ capacity = ((be32_to_cpup(rate)) >> 20) * cpu_eff->efficiency;
+
+ /* Save min capacity of the system */
+ if (capacity < min_capacity)
+ min_capacity = capacity;
+
+ /* Save max capacity of the system */
+ if (capacity > max_capacity)
+ max_capacity = capacity;
+
+ cpu_capacity[cpu].capacity = capacity;
+ cpu_capacity[cpu++].hwid = be32_to_cpup(reg);
+ }
+
+ if (cpu < num_possible_cpus())
+ cpu_capacity[cpu].hwid = (unsigned long)(-1);
+
+ middle_capacity = (min_capacity + max_capacity) >> 11;
+}
+
+void update_cpu_power(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long hwid)
+{
+ unsigned int idx = 0;
+
+ /* look for the cpu's hwid in the cpu capacity table */This smells like an O(n^2) loop.. ARM has only small cpu counts so this isn't an immediate issue, would still be nice to make a note of it though.
+ for (idx = 0; idx < num_possible_cpus(); idx++) {
+ if (cpu_capacity[idx].hwid == hwid)
+ break;
+
+ if (cpu_capacity[idx].hwid == -1)
+ return;
+ }
+
+ if (idx == num_possible_cpus())
+ return;
+
+ set_power_scale(cpu, cpu_capacity[idx].capacity / middle_capacity);OK, but there's no guarantee here you'll stay within that [1,2*SCHED_POWER_SCALE-1] range. This might want a comment and or runtime verification so that when people extend the table_efficiency[] wrongly we'll get notice, humm?
+ printk(KERN_INFO "CPU%u: update cpu_power %lu\n", + cpu, arch_scale_freq_power(NULL, cpu)); +}