Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1372868 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-06 23:40 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-04-07 00:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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
| From | Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 23:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event |
| Message-ID | <rl3l8-1Hl-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 23:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] cpufreq: remove redundant CPUFREQ_INCOMPATIBLE notifier event |
| Message-ID | <rl3uN-1KQ-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1372868 |
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: > 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: >>>> [cut] >> >> 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? I'd rather see a patch series adding the event back along with some users. One user at least.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 00:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rl3Eu-1Ox-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1372878 |
On 04/06/2016 02:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> 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: >>>>> > > [cut] > >>> >>> 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? > > I'd rather see a patch series adding the event back along with some > users. One user at least. > Ok, I'll make those two drivers use them and send it out. It's very clearly a bug in those drivers. -Saravana` -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web