[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKTCnznuf1jwWZEqi+og8LyayfzMwGYRUXhK4+zfbSYDfexyRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 23:47:58 +1100
From: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Abhishek <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akshay Adiga <akshay.adiga@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 2/3] powernv-cpufreq: Fix pstate_to_idx() to handle
non-continguous pstates
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Monday, December 18, 2017 9:38:20 AM CET Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>> Hi Balbir,
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 02:15:25PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Gautham R. Shenoy
>> > <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > >
>> > > The code in powernv-cpufreq, makes the following two assumptions which
>> > > are not guaranteed by the device-tree bindings:
>> > >
>> > > 1) Pstate ids are continguous: This is used in pstate_to_idx() to
>> > > obtain the reverse map from a pstate to it's corresponding
>> > > entry into the cpufreq frequency table.
>> > >
>> > > 2) Every Pstate should always lie between the max and the min
>> > > pstates that are explicitly reported in the device tree: This
>> > > is used to determine whether a pstate reported by the PMSR is
>> > > out of bounds.
>> > >
>> > > Both these assumptions are unwarranted and can change on future
>> > > platforms.
>> >
>> > While this is a good thing, I wonder if it is worth the complexity. Pstates
>> > are contiguous because they define transitions in incremental value
>> > of change in frequency and I can't see how this can be broken in the
>> > future?
>>
>> In the future, we can have the OPAL firmware give us a smaller set of
>> pstates instead of expose every one of them. As it stands today, for
>> most of the workloads, we will need at best 20-30 pstates and not
>> beyond that.
>
> I'm not sure about the status here.
>
> Is this good to go as is or is it going to be updated?
>
I have no major objections, except some of the added complexity, but
Gautham makes a point that this is refactoring for the future
Balbir Singh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists