[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6nMV0FmxL2SO95z@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:22:23 +0530
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <dhananjay.ugwekar@....com>
Cc: mario.limonciello@....com, rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/12] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Remove the unnecessary
cpufreq_update_policy call
On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 11:25:19AM +0000, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> The update_limits callback is only called in two conditions.
>
> * When the preferred core rankings change. In which case, we just need to
> change the prefcore ranking in the cpudata struct. As there are no changes
> to any of the perf values, there is no need to call cpufreq_update_policy()
>
> * When the _PPC ACPI object changes, i.e. the highest allowed Pstate
> changes. The _PPC object is only used for a table based cpufreq driver
> like acpi-cpufreq, hence is irrelevant for CPPC based amd-pstate.
>
> Hence, the cpufreq_update_policy() call becomes unnecessary and can be
> removed.
Thanks for the cleanup.
Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhananjay Ugwekar <dhananjay.ugwekar@....com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index 346fac646eba..107ad953ce43 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@ -852,10 +852,6 @@ static void amd_pstate_update_limits(unsigned int cpu)
> sched_set_itmt_core_prio((int)cur_high, cpu);
> }
> cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> -
> - if (!highest_perf_changed)
> - cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
> -
> }
>
> /*
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists