linux-acpi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor: Add QoS requests for all CPUs
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:21:32 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191025085132.qk6iynyavgvp7wlm@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hyAX6zpr+2EzURg7ACmaXhbTAc7mBnr9ep11LkF1EBOg@mail.gmail.com>

On 25-10-19, 10:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 4:53 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 25-10-19, 02:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > >
> > > The _PPC change notifications from the platform firmware are per-CPU,
> > > so acpi_processor_ppc_init() needs to add a frequency QoS request
> > > for each CPU covered by a cpufreq policy to take all of them into
> > > account.
> > >
> > > Even though ACPI thermal control of CPUs sets frequency limits
> > > per processor package, it also needs a frequency QoS request for each
> > > CPU in a cpufreq policy in case some of them are taken offline and
> > > the frequency limit needs to be set through the remaining online
> > > ones (this is slightly excessive, because all CPUs covered by one
> > > cpufreq policy will set the same frequency limit through their QoS
> > > requests, but it is not incorrect).
> > >
> > > Modify the code in accordance with the above observations.
> >
> > I am not sure if I understood everything you just said, but I don't
> > see how things can break with the current code we have.
> >
> > Both acpi_thermal_cpufreq_init() and acpi_processor_ppc_init() are
> > called from acpi_processor_notifier() which is registered as a policy
> > notifier and is called when a policy is created or removed. Even if
> > some CPUs of a policy go offline, it won't matter as the request for
> > the policy stays and it will be dropped only when all the CPUs of a
> > policy go offline.
> >
> > What am I missing ?
> 
> The way the request is used.

Yes, I missed the point :)

-- 
viresh

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-25  8:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-25  0:41 [PATCH] ACPI: processor: Add QoS requests for all CPUs Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-10-25  2:53 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-10-25  8:17   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-10-25  8:46     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-10-25  8:51     ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2019-10-25  8:51 ` Viresh Kumar

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=20191025085132.qk6iynyavgvp7wlm@vireshk-i7 \
    --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
    /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).