[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d6d601d2647644238fc51621407061e1c29320d.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 20:31:30 -0700
From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...rret.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency
invariant accounting
On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:05 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 2:29:26 PM CEST Giovanni Gherdovich
> wrote:
> > From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > intel_pstate has two operating modes: active and passive. In
> > "active"
> > mode, the in-built scaling governor is used and in "passive" mode,
> > the driver can be used with any governor like "schedutil". In
> > "active"
> > mode the utilization values from schedutil is not used and there is
> > a requirement from high performance computing use cases, not to
> > readas well
> > any APERF/MPERF MSRs.
>
> Well, this isn't quite convincing.
>
> In particular, I don't see why the "don't read APERF/MPERF MSRs"
> argument
> applies *only* to intel_pstate in the "active" mode. What about
> intel_pstate
> in the "passive" mode combined with the "performance" governor? Or
> any other
> governor different from "schedutil" for that matter?
>
> And what about acpi_cpufreq combined with any governor different from
> "schedutil"?
>
> Scale invariance is not really needed in all of those cases right now
> AFAICS,
> or is it?
Correct. This is just part of the patch to disable in active mode
(particularly in HWP and performance mode).
But this patch is 2 years old. The folks who wanted this, disable
intel-pstate and use userspace governor with acpi-cpufreq. So may be
better to address those cases too.
>
> So is the real concern that intel_pstate in the "active" mode reads
> the MPERF
> and APERF MSRs by itself and that kind of duplicates what the scale
> invariance
> code does and is redundant etc?
It is redundant in non-HWP mode. In HWP and performance (active mode)
we don't use atleast at this time.
Thanks
Srinivas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists