The last_load is updated not cpufreq_get_actual_power() function call
but cpufreq_get_requested_power() function call.
Signed-off-by: Inhyuk Kang <hugh.kang@lge.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Currently all CPU cooling devices share a
`struct thermal_cooling_device_ops` instance. The thermal core uses the
presence of functions in this struct to determine if a cooling device
has a power model (see cdev_is_power_actor). cpu_cooling.c adds the
power model functions to the shared struct when a device is registered
with a power model.
Therefore, if a CPU cooling device is registered using
[of_]cpufreq_power_cooling_register, _all_ devices will be determined to
have a power model, including any registered with
[of_]cpufreq_cooling_register. This can result in cpufreq_state2power
being called on a device where dyn_power_table is NULL.
With this commit, instead of having a shared thermal_cooling_device_ops
which is mutated, we have two versions: one with the power functions and
one without.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@arm.com>
Cc: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@gmail.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Most of the callers of cpufreq_frequency_get_table() already have the
pointer to a valid 'policy' structure and they don't really need to go
through the per-cpu variable first and then a check to validate the
frequency, in order to find the freq-table for the policy.
Directly use the policy->freq_table field instead for them.
Only one user of that API is left after above changes, cpu_cooling.c and
it accesses the freq_table in a racy way as the policy can get freed in
between.
Fix it by using cpufreq_cpu_get() properly.
Since there are no more users of cpufreq_frequency_get_table() left, get
rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> (cpu_cooling.c)
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
The freq_table array is not populated before calling
thermal_of_cooling_register. The code which populates the freq table was
introduced in commit f6859014.
This should be done before registering new thermal cooling device.
The log shows effects of this wrong decision.
[ 2.172614] cpu cpu1: Failed to get voltage for frequency 1984518656000: -34
[ 2.220863] cpu cpu0: Failed to get voltage for frequency 1984524416000: -34
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.19+
Fixes: f6859014c7 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: Store frequencies in descending order")
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
In __cpufreq_cooling_register() we allocate the arrays for time_in_idle
and time_in_idle_timestamp to be as big as the number of cpus in this
cpufreq device. However, in get_load() we access this array using the
cpu number as index, which can result in an out of bound access.
Index time_in_idle{,_timestamp} using the index in the cpufreq_device's
allowed_cpus mask, as we do for the load_cpu array in
cpufreq_get_requested_power()
Reported-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>
Cc: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@gmail.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
In the function cpufreq_get_requested_power, the memory allocated
for load_cpu is live within the function only. And after the
allocation it is immediately freed with devm_kfree. There is no
need to allocate memory for load_cpu with devm function so replace
devm_kcalloc with kcalloc and devm_kfree with kfree.
Signed-off-by: Vaishali Thakkar <vthakkar1994@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
The power table is not being freed on error from cpufreq_cooling
register or when unregistering. Free it.
Fixes: c36cf07176 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API")
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
build_dyn_power_table() allocates the power table while holding
rcu_read_lock. kcalloc using GFP_KERNEL may sleep, so it can't be
called in an RCU read-side path.
Move the rcu protection to the part of the function that really needs
it: the part that handles the dev_pm_opp pointer received from
dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil(). In the unlikely case that there is an OPP
added to the cpu while this function is running, return -EAGAIN.
Fixes: c36cf07176 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API")
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
policy->max is the maximum allowed frequency defined by user and
clipped_freq is the maximum that thermal constraints allow.
If clipped_freq is lower than policy->max, then we need to readjust
policy->max.
But, if clipped_freq is greater than policy->max, we don't need to do
anything. We used to call cpufreq_verify_within_limits() in this case,
but it doesn't change anything in this case.
Lets skip this unnecessary call and write a comment that explains this.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
That's what it is for, lets name it properly.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
That's what it is for, lets name it properly.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We just need to take care of single event here and there is no need to
increase indentation level of most of the code (which causes lines
longer that 80 columns to break).
Kill the switch block.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
If a valid cpufreq_dev is found for policy->cpu, we should update the
policy and quit the for loop. There is no need to keep traversing the
list of cpufreq_dev's.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Its always set before getting used, don't initialize it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Ensure that the CPU for which the frequency is being requested
is online. If none of the CPUs are online the requested power is
returned as 0.
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Kapileshwar Singh <kapileshwar.singh@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
It was initially understood that an update to the cpu_device
(cached in cpufreq_cooling_device) was required to ascertain the
correct operating point of the device on a cpufreq policy->cpu update
or creation or deletion of a cpufreq policy.
(e.g. when the existing policy CPU goes offline).
This update is not required and it is possible to ascertain the OPPs
from the leading CPU in a cpufreq domain even if the CPU is hotplugged out.
Fixes: e0128d8ab423 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API")
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Kapileshwar Singh <kapileshwar.singh@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We allocate the power_table in memory but we don't test whether the
allocation succeeded. Return -ENOMEM if kcalloc() fails.
Fixes: e0128d8ab423 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: implement the power cooling device API")
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Add trace events for the power allocator governor and the power actor
interface of the cpu cooling device.
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Add a basic power model to the cpu cooling device to implement the
power cooling device API. The power model uses the current frequency,
current load and OPPs for the power calculations. The cpus must have
registered their OPPs using the OPP library.
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Kapileshwar Singh <kapileshwar.singh@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
The node field of struct cpufreq_cooling_device was reintroduced in
2dcd851fe4 (thermal: cpu_cooling: Update always cpufreq policy with
thermal constraints) but without the documentation that it once had.
Add it back so that all the fields of struct cpufreq_cooling_device
are documented.
Cc: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
There was a left over return here so the error handling isn't run.
It leads to a small memory leak and a static checker warning.
drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c:351 __cpufreq_cooling_register()
info: ignoring unreachable code.
Fixes: f6859014c7 ("thermal: cpu_cooling: Store frequencies in descending order")
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Adding my copyright information for two purposes:
- To get cc'd for future patches to review (Only if people read this header
while sending mail)
- Have done enough changes to earn a place here?
Cc: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
get_property() was an over complicated beast with BUGs. It used to believe that
cpufreq table is present in ascending or descending order, which might not
always be true.
Previous patch has created another freq table in descending order for us and we
better use it now. With that get_property() simply goes away and another helper
get_level() comes in.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
CPUFreq framework *doesn't* guarantee that frequencies present in cpufreq table
will be in ascending or descending order. But cpu_cooling somehow assumes that.
Probably because most of current users are creating this list from DT, which is
done with the help of OPP layer. And OPP layer creates the list in ascending
order of frequencies.
But cpu_cooling can be used for other platforms too, which don't have
frequencies arranged in any order.
This patch tries to fix this issue by creating another list of valid frequencies
in descending order. Care is also taken to throw warnings for duplicate entries.
Later patches would use it to simplify code.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We already know the value of 'cpufreq_dev->max_level' and so there is no need
calculating that once again. For this, we need to send 'cpufreq_dev' to
get_property().
Make all necessary changes for this change. Because cpufreq_cooling_get_level()
doesn't have access to 'cpufreq_dev', it is updated to iterate over the list of
cpufreq_cooling_devices to get cooling device for the cpu number passed to it.
This also makes it robust to return levels only for the CPU registered via a
cooling device. We don't have to support anything that isn't registered yet.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
As we already have a list of cpufreq_cooling_devices now, lets use it instead of
a local counter.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We don't use get_property() to find max levels anymore as it is done at boot
now. So, don't support GET_MAXL in get_property().
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
CPU frequency tables don't update after the driver is registered and so we don't
need to iterate over them to find total number of states every time
cpufreq_get_max_state() is called. Do it once at boot time.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
get_cpu_frequency() isn't doing much by itself, just calling get_property(). And
so this wrapper isn't required at all. Get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
cpufreq_apply_cooling() has a single caller, cpufreq_set_cur_state() and
cpufreq_set_cur_state() is an unnecessary wrapper over cpufreq_apply_cooling().
Get rid of it by merging both routines.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
There is no point checking for validity of 'cpufreq_val' from
cpufreq_thermal_notifier() every time the routine is called. Its guaranteed to
be 0 on the first call but will be valid otherwise.
Lets update it once while the device registers.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
This makes life easy and bug free. And is scalable for future resource
allocations.
Acked-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Because get_cpu_frequency() has returned a valid frequency, it means that the
cpufreq policy is surely valid and so no point checking that again with
is_cpufreq_valid(). Get rid of the routine as well as there are no more users.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
All CPUs present in 'allowed_cpus' share the same 'struct cpufreq_policy'
structure and so calling cpufreq_update_policy() for each of them doesn't make
sense.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
In __cpufreq_cooling_register() we try to match min/max frequencies for all CPUs
passed in 'clip_cpus' mask. This mask is the cpumask of cpus where the frequency
constraints will be applied.
Same frequency constraint can be applied only to the CPUs belonging to the same
cluster (i.e. CPUs sharing clock line). For all such CPUs we have a single
'struct cpufreq_policy' structure managing them and so getting policies for all
CPUs wouldn't make any sense as they will all return the same pointer.
So, remove this useless check of checking min/max for all CPUs. Also update doc
comment to make this more obvious that clip_cpus should be same as
policy->related_cpus.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
We aren't supposed to return our own error type here. Return what we got.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
ret is initialized before it is used, so no need to set it to 0 in its declaration.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
It will be overwritten soon with return value of kzalloc().
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
This wasn't explained well anywhere and should be clearly specified. Lets add a
top level comment for this.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
cooling_cpufreq_lock isn't used to protect this structure and so the comment
over it is outdated. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
In this patch, the cpu_cooling code checks for the usability of cpufreq
layer before proceeding with the CPU cooling device registration. The
main reason is: CPU cooling device is not usable if cpufreq cannot
switch frequencies.
Similar checks are spread in thermal drivers. Thus, the advantage now
is to have the check in a single place: cpu cooling device registration.
For this reason, this patch also updates the existing drivers that
depend on CPU cooling to simply propagate the error code of the cpu
cooling registration call. Therefore, in case cpufreq is not ready, the
thermal drivers will still return -EPROBE_DEFER, in an attempt to try
again when cpufreq layer gets ready.
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@samsung.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
Existing code updates cupfreq policy only while executing
cpufreq_apply_cooling() function (i.e. when notify_device != NOTIFY_INVALID).
It doesn't apply constraints when cpufreq policy update happens from any other
place but it should update the cpufreq policy with thermal constraints every
time when there is a cpufreq policy update, to keep state of
cpufreq_cooling_device and max_feq of cpufreq policy in sync. For instance
while resuming cpufreq updates cpufreq_policy and it restores default
policy->usr_policy values irrespective of cooling device's cpufreq_state since
notification gets missed because (notify_device == NOTIFY_INVALID).
Another problem, is that userspace is able to change max_freq irrespective of
cooling device's state, as notification gets missed.
This patch modifies code to maintain a global cpufreq_dev_list and applies
constraints of all matching cooling devices for policy's cpu when there is any
policy update(ends up applying the lowest max_freq among the matching cpu
cooling devices).
This patch also removes redundant check (max_freq > policy->user_policy.max),
as cpufreq framework takes care of user_policy constraints already where ever
required, otherwise its causing an issue while increasing max_freq in normal
scenerio as it restores max_freq with policy->user_policy.max which is old
(smaller) value.
Signed-off-by: Yadwinder Singh Brar <yadi.brar@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>
The cpufreq core now supports the cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry macro
helper for iteration over the cpufreq_frequency_table, so use it.
Also remove the redundant !! operator.
It should have no functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Hugh Kang
Brendan Jackman
Rafael J. Wysocki
Viresh Kumar
Lukasz Luba
Javi Merino
Vaishali Thakkar
Russell King
Kapileshwar Singh
Zhang Rui
Dan Carpenter
Eduardo Valentin
Yadwinder Singh Brar
Stratos Karafotis