Re: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: cooling: Check Energy Model type in cpufreq_cooling and devfreq_cooling

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 16/02/2022 23:13, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 09:33:50AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:35 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi Matthias,
> > >
> > > On 2/9/22 10:17 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 11:16:36AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > > > > On 2/8/22 5:25 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:32:28AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > > > Could you point me to those devices please?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-*
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Though as per above they shouldn't be impacted by your change, since the
> > > > > > CPUs always pretend to use milli-Watts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [skipped some questions/answers since sc7180 isn't actually impacted by
> > > > > >     the change]
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Matthias. I will investigate your setup to get better
> > > > > understanding.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > I've checked those DT files and related code.
> > > As you already said, this patch is safe for them.
> > > So we can apply it IMO.
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------Off-topic------------------
> > > Not in $subject comments:
> > >
> > > AFAICS based on two files which define thermal zones:
> > > sc7180-trogdor-homestar.dtsi
> > > sc7180-trogdor-coachz.dtsi
> > >
> > > only the 'big' cores are used as cooling devices in the
> > > 'skin_temp_thermal' - the CPU6 and CPU7.
> > >
> > > I assume you don't want to model at all the power usage
> > > from the Little cluster (which is quite big: 6 CPUs), do you?
> > > I can see that the Little CPUs have small dyn-power-coeff
> > > ~30% of the big and lower max freq, but still might be worth
> > > to add them to IPA. You might give them more 'weight', to
> > > make sure they receive more power during power split.
>
> In experiments we saw that including the little cores as cooling
> devices for 'skin_temp_thermal' didn't have a significant impact on
> thermals, so we left them out.

I agree, that was also my conclusion after doing some measurements.

Basically, the little cores are always cold and are victims of the big 
cores heat dissipation.

They of course contribute a bit to the heat but capping their 
performance does not change the temperature trend of the whole.

That is less true with silver-gold were it is the same micro-arch but 
different frequencies.


> > > You also don't have GPU cooling device in that thermal zone.
> > > Based on my experience if your GPU is a power hungry one,
> > > e.g. 2-4Watts, you might get better results when you model
> > > this 'hot' device (which impacts your temp sensor reported value).
> >
> > I think the two boards you point at (homestar and coachz) are just the
> > two that override the default defined in the SoC dtsi file. If you
> > look in sc7180.dtsi you'll see 'gpuss1-thermal' which has a cooling
> > map. You can also see the cooling maps for the littles.
>
> Yep, plus thermal zones with cooling maps for the big cores.
>
> > I guess we don't have a `dynamic-power-coefficient` for the GPU,
> > though? Seems like we should, but I haven't dug through all the code
> > here...
>
> To my knowledge the SC7x80 GPU doesn't register an energy model, which is
> one of the reasons the GPU wasn't included as cooling device for
> 'skin_temp_thermal'.




--
<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