On 10/06/2015 07:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 07, 2015 12:43:55 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 06, 2015 05:49:07 PM Prarit Bhargava wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>> index 3af9dd7..bb24458 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>>> @@ -986,6 +986,9 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct
>>> cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> if (!policy->cpuinfo.max_freq)
>>> return -ENODEV;
>>>
>>> + limits.min_sysfs_pct = 0;
>>> + limits.max_sysfs_pct = 100;
>>> +
>>> if (policy->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE &&
>>> policy->max >= policy->cpuinfo.max_freq) {
>>> limits.min_policy_pct = 100;
>>> @@ -1004,9 +1007,9 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct
>>> cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> limits.max_policy_pct = clamp_t(int, limits.max_policy_pct, 0 , 100);
>>>
>>> /* Normalize user input to [min_policy_pct, max_policy_pct] */
>>> - limits.min_perf_pct = max(limits.min_policy_pct, limits.min_sysfs_pct);
>>> + limits.min_perf_pct = limits.min_policy_pct;
>>> limits.min_perf_pct = min(limits.max_policy_pct, limits.min_perf_pct);
>>> - limits.max_perf_pct = min(limits.max_policy_pct, limits.max_sysfs_pct);
>>> + limits.max_perf_pct = limits.max_sysfs_pct;
>
> On a second thought, isn't that always 100? If so, doesn't it basically
> discard
> limits.max_policy_pct?
Wow :) I think you're right and that definitely was an unintended consequence
of this patch. I also see that I can clean up the intel_pstate_set_policy()
code a bit more. I'll submit a 2-part v2.
P.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
