On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 07:03:36 AM Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> Hi Srinivas,
> Your idea is great, but your patch at cpufreq.c will force all platforms to
> use scaling_cur_freq as first choice when userspace wants to access
> cpuinfo_cur_freq. It is ok for intel x86 platfrom but hard to say with
On Monday, July 24, 2017 07:57:45 PM Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 01:46 +, Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > If you delete "get" function implement within intel_pstate, the
> > sysfs interface cpuinfo_cur_freq will display all the
> > time.
> cpuinfo_cur_f
Hi Srinivas,
Oh, I see. Originally I thought this function "arch_freq_get_on_cpu" would have
chance to expand to other platforms in the future. Because I found that it
appears at cpufreq.c as __weak.
But if it is sure that this function only works for x86 all the time, I think
it doesn't matte
Hi Huaisheng,
On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 07:03 +, Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> Hi Srinivas,
> Your idea is great, but your patch at cpufreq.c will force all
> platforms to use scaling_cur_freq as first choice when userspace
> wants to access cpuinfo_cur_freq. It is ok for intel x86 platfrom but
> hard
Hi Srinivas,
Your idea is great, but your patch at cpufreq.c will force all platforms to use
scaling_cur_freq as first choice when userspace wants to access
cpuinfo_cur_freq. It is ok for intel x86 platfrom but hard to say with other
platforms.
I modified it like that, it looks more reasonable.
On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 01:46 +, Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> If you delete "get" function implement within intel_pstate, the
> sysfs interface cpuinfo_cur_freq will display all the
> time.
cpuinfo_cur_freq by definition should show actual frequency HW
frequency. Unless I missed s
Hi Rafael,
If you delete "get" function implement within intel_pstate, the
sysfs interface cpuinfo_cur_freq will display all the time.
To be honest, at the beginning I have consider this way like you
patched, but based two reasons below, it is conservative for us to do that.
1. I am worried a
On Monday, July 24, 2017 03:32:47 PM Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> > On Monday, July 24, 2017 05:43:14 AM Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> > > After commit 82b4e03e01bc (intel_pstate: skip scheduler hook when in
> > > "performance" mode) Software P-state control modes
Hi Rafael,
Thanks for your reply.
> On Monday, July 24, 2017 05:43:14 AM Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> > After commit 82b4e03e01bc (intel_pstate: skip scheduler hook when in
> > "performance" mode) Software P-state control modes couldn't get
> > dynamic value during performance mode,
>
> Please expla
On Monday, July 24, 2017 05:43:14 AM Huaisheng HS1 Ye wrote:
> After commit 82b4e03e01bc (intel_pstate: skip scheduler hook when
> in "performance" mode) Software P-state control modes couldn't get
> dynamic value during performance mode,
Please explain what you mean here.
I guess you carried out
After commit 82b4e03e01bc (intel_pstate: skip scheduler hook when
in "performance" mode) Software P-state control modes couldn't get
dynamic value during performance mode, and it still in last value from
powersave mode, so clear its value to get same behavior as Hardware
P-state to avoid confusion.
11 matches
Mail list logo
