On 05.08.19 09:37, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/08/2019 07:11, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
>> ---
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> +static s64 cpuidle_cooling_runtime(struct cpuidle_cooling_device
>>> *idle_cdev)
>>> +{
>>> + s64 next_wakeup;
>>> + unsigned long state = idle_cdev->state;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * The function should not be called when there is no
>>> + * mitigation because:
>>> + * - that does not make sense
>>> + * - we end up with a division by zero
>>> + */
>>> + if (!state)
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + next_wakeup = (s64)((idle_cdev->idle_cycle * 100) / state) -
>>> + idle_cdev->idle_cycle;
>>> +
>>> + return next_wakeup * NSEC_PER_USEC;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> There is a bug in your calculation formula here when "state" becomes 100.
>> You return 0 for the injection rate, which is the same as "rate" being 0,
>> which is dangerous. You stop cooling when it's most necessary :)
>
> Right, thanks for spotting this.
>
>> I'm not sure how much sense really being 100% idle makes, so I, when testing
>> this, just say if (state == 100) { state = 99 }. Anyways, just don't return
>> 0.
>>
>> Daniel, thanks a lot for these additions! Could you send an update of this?
>
> Yes, I'm working on a new version.
great.
>
>> btw, that's what I'm referring to:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/1522945005-7165-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezc...@linaro.org/
>> I know it's a little old already, but it seems like there hasn't been any
>> equivalent solution in the meantime, has it?
>>
>> Using cpuidle for cooling is way more effective than cpufreq (which often
>> hardly is).
>
> On which platform that happens?
>
>
I'm running this on imx8mq.
thanks,
martin
