Hi Shilpa,
On 05/04/2015 02:24 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote:
> Re-evaluate the chip's throttled state on recieving OCC_THROTTLE
> notification by executing *throttle_check() on any one of the cpu on
> the chip. This is a sanity check to verify if we were indeed
> throttled/unthrottled after receiving OCC_THROTTLE notification.
>
> We cannot call *throttle_check() directly from the notification
> handler because we could be handling chip1's notification in chip2. So
> initiate an smp_call to execute *throttle_check(). We are irq-disabled
> in the notification handler, so use a worker thread to smp_call
> throttle_check() on any of the cpu in the chipmask.
I see that the first patch takes care of reporting *per-chip* throttling
for pmax capping condition. But where are we taking care of reporting
"pstate set to safe" and "freq control disabled" scenarios per-chip ?
>
> Signed-off-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> index 9268424..9618813 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c
> @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ static bool rebooting, throttled, occ_reset;
> static struct chip {
> unsigned int id;
> bool throttled;
> + cpumask_t mask;
> + struct work_struct throttle;
> } *chips;
>
> static int nr_chips;
> @@ -310,8 +312,9 @@ static inline unsigned int get_nominal_index(void)
> return powernv_pstate_info.max - powernv_pstate_info.nominal;
> }
>
> -static void powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(unsigned int cpu)
> +static void powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(void *data)
> {
> + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> unsigned long pmsr;
> int pmsr_pmax, pmsr_lp, i;
>
> @@ -373,7 +376,7 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_target_index(struct
> cpufreq_policy *policy,
> return 0;
>
> if (!throttled)
> - powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(smp_processor_id());
> + powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check(NULL);
>
> freq_data.pstate_id = powernv_freqs[new_index].driver_data;
>
> @@ -418,6 +421,14 @@ static struct notifier_block powernv_cpufreq_reboot_nb =
> {
> .notifier_call = powernv_cpufreq_reboot_notifier,
> };
>
> +void powernv_cpufreq_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct chip *chip = container_of(work, struct chip, throttle);
> +
> + smp_call_function_any(&chip->mask,
> + powernv_cpufreq_throttle_check, NULL, 0);
> +}
> +
> static char throttle_reason[][30] = {
> "No throttling",
> "Power Cap",
> @@ -433,6 +444,7 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_occ_msg(struct notifier_block
> *nb,
> struct opal_msg *occ_msg = msg;
> uint64_t token;
> uint64_t chip_id, reason;
> + int i;
>
> if (msg_type != OPAL_MSG_OCC)
> return 0;
> @@ -466,6 +478,10 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_occ_msg(struct notifier_block
> *nb,
> occ_reset = false;
> throttled = false;
> pr_info("OCC: Active\n");
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_chips; i++)
> + schedule_work(&chips[i].throttle);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -476,6 +492,12 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_occ_msg(struct notifier_block
> *nb,
> else if (!reason)
> pr_info("OCC: Chip %u %s\n", (unsigned int)chip_id,
> throttle_reason[reason]);
> + else
> + return 0;
Why the else section ? The code can never reach here, can it ?
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_chips; i++)
> + if (chips[i].id == chip_id)
> + schedule_work(&chips[i].throttle);
> }
Should we not do this only when we get unthrottled so as to cross verify
if it is indeed the case ? In case of throttling notification, opal's
verdict is final and there is no need to cross verify right ?
Perhaps the one thing that needs to be taken care in addition to
reporting throttling is setting the chip's throttled parameter to true.
This should do right ? I don't see the need to call throttle_check() here.
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -527,6 +549,8 @@ static int init_chip_info(void)
> for (i = 0; i < nr_chips; i++) {
> chips[i].id = chip[i];
> chips[i].throttled = false;
> + cpumask_copy(&chips[i].mask, cpumask_of_node(chip[i]));
> + INIT_WORK(&chips[i].throttle, powernv_cpufreq_work_fn);
> }
>
> return 0;
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
