[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190305114252.wu55upnrzb5j2g7j@queper01-lin>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:42:54 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Update max frequency on
global turbo changes
On Tuesday 05 Mar 2019 at 11:42:06 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +static void intel_pstate_update_max_freq(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = cpufreq_cpu_acquire(cpu);
> + struct cpufreq_policy new_policy;
> + struct cpudata *cpudata;
> +
> + if (!policy)
> + return;
> +
> + cpudata = all_cpu_data[cpu];
> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = global.turbo_disabled_mf ?
> + cpudata->pstate.max_freq : cpudata->pstate.turbo_freq;
I'm not too familiar with how the Intel turbo stuff so bear with me but
is this 'pstate.turbo_freq' constant ?
Why not just write it unconditionally into cpuinfo.max_freq ? It's not
guaranteed to always be reachable anyways no ? So maybe that's OK to always
report that one regardless of the boost availability ?
> + memcpy(&new_policy, policy, sizeof(*policy));
> + new_policy.max = min(policy->user_policy.max, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> + new_policy.min = min(policy->user_policy.min, new_policy.max);
> +
> + cpufreq_set_policy(policy, &new_policy);
> +
> + cpufreq_cpu_release(policy);
> +}
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists