[PM] 25/08/10 - Minutes for the Power Management WG weekly call

[Vishwanath Sripathy]

I had missed some observation in previous testing. Apologies for that.
I noticed that if I sum up C state average residency, it is not summing up
to 100%. Also some of the C state average residency seems to be not
correct.
Attached is the log and changes I have done on top of latest powertop code
to cross compile it for OMAP.

Regards
Vishwa

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Vishwanath Sripathy <
vishwanath.sripathy at linaro.org> wrote:

> Some updates on Action items:
>  * ACTION: Vishwa to verify powertop on 2.6.35
> I verified powertop using latest Kevin's pm branch (2.6.35) and it is
> working as expected.
>
> Regards
> Vishwa
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria at linaro.org>wrote:
>
>> The minutes of the weekly call can be found at:
>>
>> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Meetings/2010-08-25
>>
>> The minutes and actions are copied below.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Amit
>>
>> Attendees:
>>
>> Linaro: Amit Kucheria, Amit Arora, Yong Shen
>> ARM: Robin Randhawa, Bobby Batacharia, Srinivas Kalaga
>>
>>
>> == Action Items from this Meeting ==
>>  * ACTION: Yong to work with John Rigby and Ubuntu kernel team to make
>> sure the Linaro kernel contains powertop kernel patches
>>  * ACTION: Vishwa to verify powertop on 2.6.35
>>  * ACTION: Vishwa to check with cpuidle/cpufreq experts in TI for
>> verifying cpufreq behavior on multi-core OMAP
>>  * ACTION: Amit A to get the powertop patch integrated into Linaro/Ubuntu
>> packages
>>  * ACTION: Yong to test common clk API patches on imx5 and help get it
>> booting on babbage 3.0
>>
>> == Action Items from Previous Meeting ==
>>
>>  * ACTIVE (Immediate):
>>   * ACTION: Amit A to test on pm enabled OMAP3 board: DONE on 2.6.32 on
>> zoom3 board
>>     * New ACTION: Vishwa to verify on 2.6.35
>>   * ACTION: Amit A to document details on power supply class (battery
>> info) to PowerTOP internal wiki page: DONE
>>   * ACTION: Yong to look into getting powertop kernel patches applied to
>> Linaro kernel tree: Not DONE
>>     * New ACTION: Yong to work with John Rigby and make sure the Linaro
>> kernel contains it
>>   * ACTION: Robin to send links to patches sent to linux-pm: DONE
>>     * http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg01740.html
>>     * It was a pointer to a discussion on having different governors on
>> different cores
>>   * ACTION: Amit K to spend some time on usecase to reproduce ondemand
>> governor problems: POSTPONED
>>   * ACTION: Yong to look at common clock FW, find out if debug info being
>> exported (usage count, clk rate, dependencies): DONE
>>
>>  * DORMANT :
>>
>>  * ACTION: ARM to share  internal  instrumentation flow (BAB: we might
>> also align with Linaro on workload discussions)
>>     * Might take couple of months
>>  * ACTION: Amit K to talk to jeremy about power domain framework: DONE
>>     * Jeremy needs help, will revisit in a few weeks
>>  * ACTION: Srinivas to provide details of where he believes userspace -
>> kernel interaction is required. (low prio)
>>  * ACTION: Bobby to check on multi-core boards availability (request open)
>>  * ACTION: ARM to discuss giving out internal Eclipse based tool (similar
>> to powertop)  (no ETA as of now)
>>  * ACTION: Amit Kucheria and Vishwa to get inputs from community on the
>> issues related to CPUIDLE governor: POSTPONED until instrumentation work
>>
>>
>> == Minutes ==
>>  * Discussion on http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg01740.html
>>    * For ARM, both cores run at same frequency (CMP)
>>      * Does it make sense for them to run different governors on each
>> core?
>>        * The consensus currently is NO
>>    * TI uses ondemand governor + policy manager
>>      * One core is kept OFF, all processing happens on the other one.
>>      * If load on one core goes above a threshold, they turn ON other core
>>      * Both cores run at same Operating Point once ON
>>  * Debug info in common clk API being discussed upstream by Jeremy
>>    * There is currently no debug info
>>    * clock name is not part of the common struct clk to keep size down
>>    * Need to engage with Jeremy
>>    * Yong will test the patches from Jeremy on imx5 and report back
>>  * Powerdebug: should we visualise the clock and power dependencies using
>> information from /sys or debugfs?
>>    * No immediate horror expressed at the idea
>>    * Freescale and TI already do it to a certain extent by dumping the
>> clock tree and rates into a table
>>    * The entire tree is too complex to depict
>>    * We could represent it in parts e.g. start at a peripheral and plot
>> it's clock and power dependencies all the way up
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linaro-dev mailing list
>> linaro-dev at lists.linaro.org
>> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-dev/attachments/20100831/5f5e6e8e/attachment-0001.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: powertop_test.log
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 844 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-dev/attachments/20100831/5f5e6e8e/attachment-0002.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: powertop_omap.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1170 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-dev/attachments/20100831/5f5e6e8e/attachment-0003.obj