On Mon, 2020-05-18 at 15:20 -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> > >
> > > I've changed the patch like so.. OK?
> > >
> > > (ok, perhaps I went a little overboard with the paranoia ;-)
> >
> > Right, I wasn't really checking for over
On Sat, May 02, 2020 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> >
> > I've changed the patch like so.. OK?
> >
> > (ok, perhaps I went a little overboard with the paranoia ;-)
>
> Right, I wasn't really checking for overflow, only for when the product
> "mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio" become
On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 15:30 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:24:49PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> > The product mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio could be zero if it overflows u64.
> >
> > For context, a large value for arch_max_freq_ratio would be 5000,
> > corresponding
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 03:24:49PM +0200, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> The product mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio could be zero if it overflows u64.
>
> For context, a large value for arch_max_freq_ratio would be 5000,
> corresponding to a turbo_freq/base_freq ratio of 5 (normally it's more like
> 150
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:25 PM Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
>
> The product mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio could be zero if it overflows u64.
>
> For context, a large value for arch_max_freq_ratio would be 5000,
> corresponding to a turbo_freq/base_freq ratio of 5 (normally it's more like
> 1500-2000).
The product mcnt * arch_max_freq_ratio could be zero if it overflows u64.
For context, a large value for arch_max_freq_ratio would be 5000,
corresponding to a turbo_freq/base_freq ratio of 5 (normally it's more like
1500-2000). A large increment frequency for the MPERF counter would be 5GHz
(the b
6 matches
Mail list logo