Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@inria.fr>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:59:45 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gt42=KRbKzRp7H6RrRdpxY-T_X_L9JjcMB+9VrvKAdvw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201023061703.jjpmoeq7wzwqtsid@vireshk-i7>

On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 8:17 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22-10-20, 18:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as default with intel_pstate
> >
> > Commit 33aa46f252c7 ("cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use passive mode by
> > default without HWP") was meant to cause intel_pstate without HWP
> > to be used in the passive mode with the schedutil governor on top of
> > it by default, but it missed the case in which either "ondemand" or
> > "conservative" was selected as the default governor in the existing
> > kernel config, in which case the previous old governor configuration
> > would be used, causing the default legacy governor to be used on top
> > of intel_pstate instead of schedutil.
> >
> > Address this by preventing "ondemand" and "conservative" from being
> > configured as the default cpufreq governor in the case when schedutil
> > is the default choice for the default governor setting.
> >
> > [Note that the default cpufreq governor can still be set via the
> >  kernel command line if need be and that choice is not limited,
> >  so if anyone really wants to use one of the legacy governors by
> >  default, it can be achieved this way.]
> >
> > Fixes: 33aa46f252c7 ("cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use passive mode by default without HWP")
> > Cc: 5.8+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.8+
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig |    2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >
> > Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
> > =================================> > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
> > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
> > @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE
> >
> >  config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >       bool "ondemand"
> > +     depends on !SMP || !X86_INTEL_PSTATE
> >       select CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >       select CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE
> >       help
> > @@ -83,6 +84,7 @@ config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >
> >  config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE
> >       bool "conservative"
> > +     depends on !SMP || !X86_INTEL_PSTATE
>
> While reading this first it felt like a SMP platforms related problem
> (which I was surprised about), and then I understood what you are
> doing.
>
> I wonder if rewriting it this way makes it more readable with same
> result eventually.
>
>         depends on !(X86_INTEL_PSTATE && SMP)

Agreed, will update.

Thanks!