On Monday, November 23, 2015 05:17:36 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 02:09 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Srinivas Pandruvada
> > <srinivas.pandruv...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
[cut]
> >
> > >> For more information on the MSR values for SKL please visit
> > >> ISDM under Managing HWP.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexandra Yates <alexandra.ya...@linux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruv...@linux.intel.com>
> > >>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 2 ++
> > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > >> b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > >> index 2e31d09..0eeb7da 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > >> @@ -1242,6 +1242,8 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct
> > >> cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >> policy->max >= policy->cpuinfo.max_freq) {
> > >> pr_debug("intel_pstate: set performance\n");
> > >> limits = &performance_limits;
> > >> + if (hwp_active)
> > >> + intel_pstate_hwp_set();
> >
> > Honestly, I'm not really sure how this is matching the changelog.
> >
> > What it does is to ensure that the correct limits are used when in the
> > HWP mode too as far as I can say. Is my understanding correct here?
> Yes.
OK
But if we make the "performance" limits take effect here, it will effectively
make HWP use min = max = 100%, right? Is that what we want to happen here?
Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/
