From patchwork Tue Feb 28 23:09:02 2017 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: "Rafael J. Wysocki" X-Patchwork-Id: 9597145 X-Patchwork-Delegate: rjw@sisk.pl Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCD80600CB for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2D62756B for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id A2AF22787C; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:27:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539192756B for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:27:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751666AbdB1X0W (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:26:22 -0500 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:42562 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751802AbdB1XZF (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:25:05 -0500 Received: from adku1.ipv4.supernova.orange.pl (79.184.254.1) (HELO aspire.rjw.lan) by serwer1319399.home.pl (79.96.170.134) with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer 0.81.2) id 207191f429804a99; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 00:16:28 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Linux PM Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada , LKML Subject: [PATCH v2 2/3] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Do not reinit performance limits in ->setpolicy Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:09:02 +0100 Message-ID: <2188688.SPioTUuSuO@aspire.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.10.0+; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2326598.n0dkg1GrdM@aspire.rjw.lan> References: <2694426.SgxlQuL17D@aspire.rjw.lan> <2326598.n0dkg1GrdM@aspire.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP From: Rafael J. Wysocki If the current P-state selection algorithm is set to "performance" in intel_pstate_set_policy(), the limits may be initialized from scratch, but only if no_turbo is not set and the maximum frequency allowed for the given CPU (i.e. the policy object representing it) is at least equal to the max frequency supported by the CPU. In all of the other cases, the limits will not be updated. For example, the following can happen: # cat intel_pstate/status active # echo performance > cpufreq/policy0/scaling_governor # cat intel_pstate/min_perf_pct 100 # echo 94 > intel_pstate/min_perf_pct # cat intel_pstate/min_perf_pct 100 # cat cpufreq/policy0/scaling_max_freq 3100000 echo 3000000 > cpufreq/policy0/scaling_max_freq # cat intel_pstate/min_perf_pct 94 # echo 95 > intel_pstate/min_perf_pct # cat intel_pstate/min_perf_pct 95 That is confusing for two reasons. First, the initial attempt to change min_perf_pct to 94 seems to have no effect, even though setting the global limits should always work. Second, after changing scaling_max_freq for policy0 the global min_perf_pct attribute shows 94, even though it should have not been affected by that operation in principle. Moreover, the final attempt to change min_perf_pct to 95 worked as expected, because scaling_max_freq for the only policy with scaling_governor equal to "performance" was different from the maximum at that time. To make all that confusion go away, modify intel_pstate_set_policy() so that it doesn't reinitialize the limits at all. At the same time, change intel_pstate_set_performance_limits() to set min_sysfs_pct to 100 in the "performance" limits set so that switching the P-state selection algorithm to "performance" causes intel_pstate/min_perf_pct in sysfs to go to 100 (or whatever value min_sysfs_pct in the "performance" limits is set to later). Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- -> v2: No changes --- drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 10 +++------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c =================================================================== --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c @@ -382,6 +382,7 @@ static void intel_pstate_set_performance intel_pstate_init_limits(limits); limits->min_perf_pct = 100; limits->min_perf = int_ext_tofp(1); + limits->min_sysfs_pct = 100; } static DEFINE_MUTEX(intel_pstate_driver_lock); @@ -2146,16 +2147,11 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struc mutex_lock(&intel_pstate_limits_lock); if (policy->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE) { + pr_debug("set performance\n"); if (!perf_limits) { limits = &performance_limits; perf_limits = limits; } - if (policy->max >= policy->cpuinfo.max_freq && - !limits->no_turbo) { - pr_debug("set performance\n"); - intel_pstate_set_performance_limits(perf_limits); - goto out; - } } else { pr_debug("set powersave\n"); if (!perf_limits) { @@ -2166,7 +2162,7 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struc } intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(policy, perf_limits); - out: + if (cpu->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE) { /* * NOHZ_FULL CPUs need this as the governor callback may not