On 31 January 2018 at 16:27, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 31/01/2018 10:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 31 January 2018 at 10:50, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On 31/01/2018 10:46, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>> On 31 January 2018 at 10:33, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 31/01/2018 10:01, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23 January 2018 at 16:34, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezc...@linaro.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ... ] (please trim :)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> + /*
>>>>>>> + * Each cooling device is per package. Each package
>>>>>>> + * has a set of cpus where the physical number is
>>>>>>> + * duplicate in the kernel namespace. We need a way to
>>>>>>> + * address the waitq[] and tsk[] arrays with index
>>>>>>> + * which are not Linux cpu numbered.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * One solution is to use the
>>>>>>> + * topology_core_id(cpu). Other solution is to use the
>>>>>>> + * modulo.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * eg. 2 x cluster - 4 cores.
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Physical numbering -> Linux numbering -> % nr_cpus
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Pkg0 - Cpu0 -> 0 -> 0
>>>>>>> + * Pkg0 - Cpu1 -> 1 -> 1
>>>>>>> + * Pkg0 - Cpu2 -> 2 -> 2
>>>>>>> + * Pkg0 - Cpu3 -> 3 -> 3
>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>> + * Pkg1 - Cpu0 -> 4 -> 0
>>>>>>> + * Pkg1 - Cpu1 -> 5 -> 1
>>>>>>> + * Pkg1 - Cpu2 -> 6 -> 2
>>>>>>> + * Pkg1 - Cpu3 -> 7 -> 3
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure that the assumption above for the CPU numbering is safe.
>>>>>> Can't you use a per cpu structure to point to resources that are per
>>>>>> cpu instead ? so you will not have to rely on CPU ordering
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you elaborate ? I don't get the part with the percpu structure.
>>>>
>>>> Something like:
>>>>
>>>> struct cpuidle_cooling_cpu {
>>>> struct task_struct *tsk;
>>>> wait_queue_head_t waitq;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_cooling_cpu *, cpu_data);
>>>
>>> I got this part but I don't get how that fixes the ordering thing.
>>
>> Because you don't care of the CPU ordering to retrieve the data as
>> they are stored per cpu directly
>
> That's what I did initially, but for consistency reasons with the
> cpufreq cpu cooling device which is stored in a list and the combo cpu
> cooling device, the cpuidle cooling device must be per cluster and
> stored in a list.
I'm not sure to catch your problem. You can still have cpuidle cooling
device per cluster and stored in the list but keep per cpu data in a
AFAICT, you will not have more than one cpu cooling device registered
per CPU so one per cpu variable that will gathers cpu private data
should be enough ?
>
> Alternatively I can do:
>
> struct cpuidle_cooling_device {
> struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
> - struct task_struct **tsk;
> + struct task_struct __percpu *tsk;
> struct cpumask *cpumask;
> struct list_head node;
> struct hrtimer timer;
> struct kref kref;
> - wait_queue_head_t *waitq;
> + wait_queue_head_t __percpu waitq;
> atomic_t count;
> unsigned int idle_cycle;
> unsigned int state;
> };
struct cpuidle_cooling_device {
struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
struct cpumask *cpumask;
struct list_head node;
struct hrtimer timer;
struct kref kref;
atomic_t count;
unsigned int idle_cycle;
unsigned int state;
};
struct cpuidle_cooling_cpu {
struct task_struct *tsk;
wait_queue_head_t waitq;
};
DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_cooling_cpu *, cpu_data);
You continue to have cpuidle_cooling_device allocated dynamically per
cluster and added in the list but task and waitq are stored per cpu
>
>
> --
> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>
> Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>
