Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-05-03 Thread Prarit Bhargava
On 04/29/2016 05:36 AM, Len Brown wrote: > But above is all cosmetic. The real "bug" that users are running into is > that they can't get into deep c-states when they are enabled. > Linux (and Intel) need to do a much better job enabling diagnosis of > that condition. > Okay, I geddit. Acked-

Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-04-29 Thread Len Brown
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 03/31/2016 12:59 AM, Len Brown wrote: >>> Len, >>> >>> Your patch does >>> >>> + skl_cstates[5].disabled = 1;/* C8-SKL */ >>> + skl_cstates[6].disabled = 1;/* C9-SKL */ >>> >>> and I don't think that is correct fo

Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-04-11 Thread Prarit Bhargava
On 03/31/2016 12:59 AM, Len Brown wrote: >> Len, >> >> Your patch does >> >> + skl_cstates[5].disabled = 1;/* C8-SKL */ >> + skl_cstates[6].disabled = 1;/* C9-SKL */ >> >> and I don't think that is correct for SKY-H. > > For https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109081 >

Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-03-30 Thread Len Brown
> Len, > > Your patch does > > + skl_cstates[5].disabled = 1;/* C8-SKL */ > + skl_cstates[6].disabled = 1;/* C9-SKL */ > > and I don't think that is correct for SKY-H. For https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=109081 it is correct. > Your patch does not take into account

Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-03-28 Thread Prarit Bhargava
On 03/24/2016 05:54 PM, Len Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> >> >> On 03/23/2016 04:05 PM, Len Brown wrote: >>> This patch assumes that if a package state is disabled, >>> the corresponding core state must be disabled. >>> That assumption is false. >>> In

Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-03-24 Thread Len Brown
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > > On 03/23/2016 04:05 PM, Len Brown wrote: >> This patch assumes that if a package state is disabled, >> the corresponding core state must be disabled. >> That assumption is false. >> Indeed, that is a very popular and useful configuratio

Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-03-23 Thread Prarit Bhargava
On 03/23/2016 04:05 PM, Len Brown wrote: > This patch assumes that if a package state is disabled, > the corresponding core state must be disabled. > That assumption is false. > Indeed, that is a very popular and useful configuration. > > But even if that were not the case, this software is not

Re: [PATCH 0/3] idle, Honor Hardware Disabled States

2016-03-23 Thread Len Brown
This patch assumes that if a package state is disabled, the corresponding core state must be disabled. That assumption is false. Indeed, that is a very popular and useful configuration. But even if that were not the case, this software is not necessary, since the hardware handles demotion "c-state