Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event

From	Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event
Date	2016-04-06 23:40 +0200
Message-ID	<rl3l8-1Hl-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <q6Wvn-8wd-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6Y49-2nB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6Ynw-2Kg-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <rl3l8-1Hl-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <rl3l8-1Hl-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/06/2016 02:21 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 09/09/2015 05:53 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10-09-15, 01:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:36:14 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's being done from CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE, can also be done with
>>>>>> CPUFREQ_ADJUST. There is nothing special with CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
>>>>>> notifier.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above part of the changelog is a disaster to me. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>> It not only doesn't explain what really goes on, but it's actively
>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> What really happens is that the core sends CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE
>>>>> notifications
>>>>> unconditionally right after sending the CPUFREQ_ADJUST ones, so the
>>>>> former is
>>>>> just redundant and it's more efficient to merge the two into one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Undoubtedly this looks far better :)
>>>>
>>>> But, isn't this series already applied some time back ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Right, never mind.  For some reason that patch was left in the "New"
>>> state.
>>>
>>> The code is OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess I didn't notice this change when it was sent out.
>>
>> The comment that was deleted in this patch clearly states why the
>> INCOMPATIBLE notifier is needed. Some client might want to boost the CPU min
>> freq for performance or other reasons, but thermal might want to limit it.
>> So, by having thermal register for INCOMPATIBLE notifiers to enforce the
>> limits, we provide a way to guarantee it gets the final say.
>>
>> The real fix should have been to change drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c to use
>> CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE instead of CPUFREQ_ADJUST.
>>
>> Is there something I'm missing? If not, can we please revert this patch?
>
> Well, nobody was using that event.
>

True, but that's more of a bug in drivers/thermal/cpu-cooling.c and 
drivers/acpi/processor_thermal.c. We should revert this patch and fix 
those drivers. Does that seem acceptable to you?

-Saravana


-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier  event Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> - 2016-04-06 23:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE  notifier event "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-04-06 23:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier  event Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> - 2016-04-07 00:00 +0200

csiph-web