From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: x86 <x86@kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@fedoraproject.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Simon Schricker <sschricker@suse.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: intel_epb: Do not build when CONFIG_PM is unset
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 09:47:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190530074710.GA68696@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3844875.YPkTDDlcrF@kreacher>
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Commit 9ed0985332a6 ("x86: intel_epb: Take CONFIG_PM into account")
> prevented the majority of the Performance and Energy Bias Hint (EPB)
> handling code from being built when CONFIG_PM is unset to fix a
> regression introduced by commit b9c273babce7 ("PM / arch: x86:
> MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS sysfs interface").
>
> In hindsight, however, it would be better to skip all of the EPB
> handling code for CONFIG_PM unset as there really is no reason for
> it to be there in that case. Namely, if the EPB is not touched
> by the kernel at all with CONFIG_PM unset, there is no need to
> worry about modifying the EPB inadvertently on CPU online and since
> the system will not suspend or hibernate then, there is no need to
> worry about possible modifications of the EPB by the platform
> firmware during system-wide PM transitions.
>
> For this reason, revert the changes made by commit 9ed0985332a6
> and only allow intel_epb.o to be built when CONFIG_PM is set.
>
> Note that this changes the behavior of the kernels built with
> CONFIG_PM unset as they will not modify the EPB on boot if it is
> zero initially any more, so it is not a fix strictly speaking, but
> users building their kernels with CONFIG_PM unset really should not
> expect them to take energy efficiency into account. Moreover, if
> CONFIG_PM is unset for performance reasons, leaving EPB as set
> initially by the platform firmware will actually be consistent
> with the user's expectations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>
> This is complementary to the EPB handling changes made in the current
> development cycle, so IMO it would be good to do it in this cycle too
> if there are no technical concerns or objections regarding it.
Sure:
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Ingo
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-30 7:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-21 22:12 [PATCH 0/2] PM / arch: x86: MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS handling fixes and sysfs i/f Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-21 22:18 ` [PATCH 1/2] PM / arch: x86: Rework the MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS handling Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-22 9:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-03-22 14:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-03-22 14:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-03-22 14:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-03-22 16:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-03-22 16:52 ` Joe Perches
2019-03-25 10:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-22 16:27 ` Thomas Renninger
2019-03-22 16:43 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-03-25 11:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-03-21 22:20 ` [PATCH 2/2] PM / arch: x86: MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS sysfs interface Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-22 9:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2019-03-22 14:46 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-03-25 10:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-22 15:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-25 9:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-25 11:32 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-05-09 10:23 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-05-09 17:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-05-09 17:43 ` Ido Schimmel
2019-05-09 21:28 ` [PATCH] x86: intel_epb: Take CONFIG_PM into account Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-05-10 6:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-05-27 10:56 ` [PATCH] x86: intel_epb: Do not build when CONFIG_PM is unset Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-05-30 7:47 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190530074710.GA68696@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=idosch@idosch.org \
--cc=labbott@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sschricker@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).