[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210629045236.pmhqactkc7unsjgj@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:22:36 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>
Cc: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...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 25-06-21, 22:29, Qian Cai wrote:
> Ionela, I found that set ACPI_PROCESSOR=y instead of
> ACPI_PROCESSOR=m will fix the previous mentioned issues here (any
> explanations of that?) even though the scaling down is not perfect.
Not sure how this affects it.
> Now, we have the following on this idle system:
>
> # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq | sort | uniq -c
> 79 1000000
> 1 1160000
> 73 1400000
> 1 2000000
> 4 2010000
> 1 2800000
> 1 860000
>
> Even if I rerun a few times, there could still have a few CPUs
> running lower than lowest_perf (1GHz).
(Please wrap your lines at 80 columns, it makes it harder to read
otherwise).
I think only the counters stopping on idle can get us that.
> Also, even though I set all CPUs to use "userspace" governor and set
> freq to the lowest. A few CPUs keep changing at will.
>
> # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq | sort | uniq -c
> 156 1000000
> 3 2000000
> 1 760000
I think this is expected since the hardware is in control of frequency
here. The software can only request it to run at X frequency, the
hardware may choose to do something else nevertheless.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists