[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f83d787-a796-0db3-3c2f-1ca616eb1979@quicinc.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:31:58 -0400
From: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency
invariance
On 6/25/2021 6:21 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
>> scaling_driver: acpi_cppc
> ^^^^^^^^^
> I suppose you mean "cppc-cpufreq"?
>
> "acpi_cppc" is not a scaling driver option.
Ionela, yes. Sorry about that.
> So your CPUs run at frequencies between 200MHz and 280MHz?
2000 to 2800 MHz.
> Based on your acpi_cppc information below I would have assumed 2GHz as
> lowest nonlinear and 2.8GHz as nominal. The reason for this is that
> according to the ACPI spec the frequency values in the _CPC objects are
> supposed to be in MHz, so 2800 MHz for nominal frequency would be
> 2.8GHz.
>
> When you try more governors, make sure to check out the difference
> between scaling_cur_freq and cpuinfo_cur_freq at [2]. The first gives
> you the frequency that the governor (schedutil) is asking for, while the
> second is giving you the current frequency obtained from the counters.
>
> So to check the actual frequency the cores are running at, please check
> cpuinfo_cur_freq.
The problem is that all CPUs are never scaling down. "cpuinfo_cur_freq" and "scaling_cur_freq" are always the 2800 MHz on all CPUs on this idle system. This looks like a regression somewhere as in 5.4-based kernel, I can see "cpuinfo_cur_freq" can go down to 2000 MHz in the same scenario. I'll bisect a bit unless you have better ideas?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists