Re: cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-06 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:25:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, May 06, 2016 02:09:07 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Thursday, May 05, 2016 04:49:22 PM Steve Muckle wrote: >> > > While working on a few patches for schedu

Re: cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 05:25:19PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:09:07AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > In turn, schedutil should probably depend on CONFIG_SMP. > > In the long term I wonder if it's worth putting PELT under its own > separate feature or just removing

Re: cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-06 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:25:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, May 06, 2016 02:09:07 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thursday, May 05, 2016 04:49:22 PM Steve Muckle wrote: > > > While working on a few patches for schedutil I noticed that the CFS > > > cpufreq hooks depend on PEL

Re: cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-05 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Thursday, May 05, 2016 05:25:19 PM Steve Muckle wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:09:07AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > In turn, schedutil should probably depend on CONFIG_SMP. > > In the long term I wonder if it's worth putting PELT under its own > separate feature or just removing #if

Re: cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-05 Thread Steve Muckle
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 02:09:07AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > In turn, schedutil should probably depend on CONFIG_SMP. In the long term I wonder if it's worth putting PELT under its own separate feature or just removing #ifdef CONFIG_SMP. Aside from task migration CPU frequency updates the

Re: cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-05 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Friday, May 06, 2016 02:09:07 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 05, 2016 04:49:22 PM Steve Muckle wrote: > > While working on a few patches for schedutil I noticed that the CFS > > cpufreq hooks depend on PELT, which depends on CONFIG_SMP. > > > > I compiled and ran a UP kernel wit

Re: cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-05 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Thursday, May 05, 2016 04:49:22 PM Steve Muckle wrote: > While working on a few patches for schedutil I noticed that the CFS > cpufreq hooks depend on PELT, which depends on CONFIG_SMP. > > I compiled and ran a UP kernel with intel_pstate. Running a cpu-bound > task did not result in the freque

cpufreq governors broken with !CONFIG_SMP?

2016-05-05 Thread Steve Muckle
While working on a few patches for schedutil I noticed that the CFS cpufreq hooks depend on PELT, which depends on CONFIG_SMP. I compiled and ran a UP kernel with intel_pstate. Running a cpu-bound task did not result in the frequency increasing beyond fmin. For some reason ondemand is working for