Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Use new thermal pressure update function
From: Thara Gopinath <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-08 21:23:09
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-pm, lkml
On 11/8/21 9:12 AM, Lukasz Luba wrote: ...snip
quoted
Well, I think the issue is broader. Look at the code which calculate this 'capacity'. It's just a multiplication & division: max_capacity = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu); // =1024 in our case capacity = mult_frac(max_capacity, throttled_freq, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq); In the reported by Steev output from sysfs cpufreq we know that the value of 'policy->cpuinfo.max_freq' is: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/cpuinfo_max_freq:2956800 so when we put the values to the equation we get: capacity = 1024 * 2956800 / 2956800; // =1024 The 'capacity' will be always <= 1024 and this check won't be triggered: /* Don't pass boost capacity to scheduler */ if (capacity > max_capacity) capacity = max_capacity; IIUC you original code, you don't want to have this boost frequency to be treated as 1024 capacity. The reason is because the whole capacity machinery in arch_topology.c is calculated based on max freq value = 2841600, so the max capacity 1024 would be pinned to that frequency (according to Steeve's log: [ 22.552273] THERMAL_PRESSURE: max_freq(2841) < capped_freq(2956) for CPUs [4-7] )
Hi Lukasz, Yes you are right in that I was using policy->cpuinfo.max_freq where as I should have used freq_factor. So now that you are using freq_factor, it makes sense to cap the capacity at the max capacity calulated by the scheduler. I agree that the problem is complex because at some point we should look at rebuilding the topology based on changes to policy->cpuinfo.max_freq.
Having all this in mind, the multiplication and division in your original code should be done: capacity = 1024 * 2956800 / 2841600; // = 1065 then clamped to 1024 value. My change just unveiled this division issue. With that in mind, I tend to agree that I should have not rely on passed boost freq value and try to apply your suggestion check. Let me experiment with that... Regards, Lukasz
-- Warm Regards Thara (She/Her/Hers) _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel