[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <001101d632d8$d6a01b30$83e05190$@net>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:09:51 -0700
From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@...us.net>
To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Len Brown'" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"'Srinivas Pandruvada'" <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"'Peter Zijlstra'" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"'Giovanni Gherdovich'" <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
"'Linux PM'" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"'Francisco Jerez'" <francisco.jerez.plata@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC/RFT][PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Work in passive mode with HWP enabled
Hi all,
The INTEL_CPUFREQ_TRANSITION_DELAY_HWP = 20000
test results from this e-mail were incorrect.
The test and graphs are being re-done.
On 2020.05.25 08:30 Doug smythies wrote:
>
> Legend - intel_pstate - powersave graph [2].
>
> What? Why is there such a graph, unrelated to this patch?
> Well, because there is a not yet understood effect.
>
> p_powe_stock : intel_pstate, powersave, stock kernel (5.7-rc6), hwp disabled.
> P_powe_hwp : intel_pstate, powersave, patched kernel (5.7-rc6), DELAY_HWP 5000.
> P_powe_hwp2 : intel_pstate, powersave, patched kernel (5.7-rc6), DELAY_HWP 20000.
>
> Conclusion: ??
>
> Note: That I merely made a stupid mistake is a real possibility.
Yes, that was it. However all DELAY_HWP 20000 tests were bad,
Not just this one.
... Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists