[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171214044239.GU3322@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 10:12:39 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Abhishek Goel <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: powernv: Add support of frequency domain
+ Gautham,
@Gautham: Can you please help reviewing this one ?
On 13-12-17, 13:49, Abhishek Goel wrote:
> @@ -693,6 +746,8 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> {
> struct powernv_smp_call_data freq_data;
> unsigned int cur_msec, gpstate_idx;
> + cpumask_t temp;
> + u32 cpu;
> struct global_pstate_info *gpstates = policy->driver_data;
>
> if (unlikely(rebooting) && new_index != get_nominal_index())
> @@ -761,24 +816,48 @@ static int powernv_cpufreq_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> spin_unlock(&gpstates->gpstate_lock);
>
> /*
> - * Use smp_call_function to send IPI and execute the
> - * mtspr on target CPU. We could do that without IPI
> - * if current CPU is within policy->cpus (core)
> + * Use smp_call_function to send IPI and execute the mtspr on CPU.
> + * This needs to be done on every core of the policy
Why on each CPU ?
> */
> - smp_call_function_any(policy->cpus, set_pstate, &freq_data, 1);
> + cpumask_copy(&temp, policy->cpus);
> +
> + while (!cpumask_empty(&temp)) {
> + cpu = cpumask_first(&temp);
> + smp_call_function_any(cpu_sibling_mask(cpu),
> + set_pstate, &freq_data, 1);
> + cpumask_andnot(&temp, &temp, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
> + }
> +
> return 0;
> }
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists