[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564F3FBA.6030806@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:43:54 -0500
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Alexandra Yates <alexandra.yates@...el.com>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq, intel_pstate, Fix limits->max_policy_pct
rounding error
On 11/20/2015 10:19 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20-11-15, 10:10, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>>> limits->max_policy_pct = clamp_t(int, limits->max_policy_pct, 0 , 100);
>>>
>>> And put this after the later one ?
>>>
>>>> + limits->max_policy_pct = DIV_ROUND_UP(policy->max * 100,
>>>> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>>>>
>>>> /* Normalize user input to [min_policy_pct, max_policy_pct] */
>>>> limits->min_perf_pct = max(limits->min_policy_pct,
>>>
>>> Sure you tested it ? :)
>>
>> Oops -- and yeah, tested. It works because I rewrite the value of
>> max_policy_pct :). I'll repost shortly.
>
> But we aren't doing below anymore, doesn't this change the
> calculations at all?
>
> limits->max_policy_pct = clamp_t(int, limits->max_policy_pct, 0 , 100);
The clamp only confines the max_policy between 0 and 100. AFAIK it doesn't make
any change tothe value of limits->max_policy_pct unless it was outside of that
range.
P.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists