Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1234504 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-28 23:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-01 12:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH] thermal: avoid division by zero in power allocator Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> - 2015-09-28 23:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] thermal: avoid division by zero in power allocator Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2015-09-29 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] thermal: avoid division by zero in power allocator Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> - 2015-10-01 12:20 +0200
| From | Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-28 23:30 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH] thermal: avoid division by zero in power allocator |
| Message-ID | <qdO9J-34R-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
During boot I get a div by zero Oops regression starting in v4.3-rc3. Reviewed-by: Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> --- drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c index 7ff9627..e570ff0 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c @@ -144,6 +144,16 @@ static void estimate_pid_constants(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, switch_on_temp = 0; temperature_threshold = control_temp - switch_on_temp; + /* + * estimate_pid_constants() tries to find appropriate default + * values for thermal zones that don't provide them. If a + * system integrator has configured a thermal zone with two + * passive trip points at the same temperature, that person + * hasn't put any effort to set up the thermal zone properly + * so just give up. + */ + if (!temperature_threshold) + return; if (!tz->tzp->k_po || force) tz->tzp->k_po = int_to_frac(sustainable_power) / -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-29 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qe9QS-oL-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1234504 |
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:28:34 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote: > During boot I get a div by zero Oops regression starting in v4.3-rc3. > > ... > > --- a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c > @@ -144,6 +144,16 @@ static void estimate_pid_constants(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, > switch_on_temp = 0; > > temperature_threshold = control_temp - switch_on_temp; > + /* > + * estimate_pid_constants() tries to find appropriate default > + * values for thermal zones that don't provide them. If a > + * system integrator has configured a thermal zone with two > + * passive trip points at the same temperature, that person > + * hasn't put any effort to set up the thermal zone properly > + * so just give up. > + */ > + if (!temperature_threshold) > + return; > > if (!tz->tzp->k_po || force) > tz->tzp->k_po = int_to_frac(sustainable_power) / a) Are we sure this won't leave tz->tzp fields uninitialized? b) I'm not understanding that code at all. The "proportional" term in a PID controller is supposed to be proportional to the (desired - actual) difference (aka "the error"). But estimate_pid_constants() appears to be setting the "proportional" term to be proportional to 1/error! Maybe a description of local `temperature_threshold' would help clue me in. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Javi Merino <javi.merino@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-01 12:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qeJ7X-13Z-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1235532 |
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:33:30PM +0100, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:28:34 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote: > > > During boot I get a div by zero Oops regression starting in v4.3-rc3. > > > > ... > > > > --- a/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/power_allocator.c > > @@ -144,6 +144,16 @@ static void estimate_pid_constants(struct thermal_zone_device *tz, > > switch_on_temp = 0; > > > > temperature_threshold = control_temp - switch_on_temp; > > + /* > > + * estimate_pid_constants() tries to find appropriate default > > + * values for thermal zones that don't provide them. If a > > + * system integrator has configured a thermal zone with two > > + * passive trip points at the same temperature, that person > > + * hasn't put any effort to set up the thermal zone properly > > + * so just give up. > > + */ > > + if (!temperature_threshold) > > + return; > > > > if (!tz->tzp->k_po || force) > > tz->tzp->k_po = int_to_frac(sustainable_power) / > > a) Are we sure this won't leave tz->tzp fields uninitialized? They will be all zeros. That's good enough. > b) I'm not understanding that code at all. The "proportional" term > in a PID controller is supposed to be proportional to the (desired - > actual) difference (aka "the error"). > > But estimate_pid_constants() appears to be setting the > "proportional" term to be proportional to 1/error! estimate_pid_constants() calculate the constants that you use in the PID algorithm. Say: k_p * error + k_i * integral_of_error + k_d * diff_of_error This code is calculating a reasonable k_p, k_i and k_d when they are not provided by the platform. > Maybe a description of local `temperature_threshold' would help > clue me in. The `error' in the above definition is: target_temperature - current_temperature whereas `temperature_threshold' is: `target_temperature' - `switch_on_temperature' `switch_on_temperature' is the temperature above which the thermal governor starts operating and throttling cpus (or whatever cooling device is configured). The `switch_on_temperature' and `target_temperature' are defined using trip points. A platform that sets two trip points to the same temperature is not properly configured. With Andrea's patch we provide degraded behavior instead of crashing. I agree with that approach (hence my Reviewed-by, maybe it should be an Acked-by?). Cheers, Javi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web