From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1AC7C433DF for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 15:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD0F20759 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2020 15:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telus.net header.i=@telus.net header.b="VEgQ20gT" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726770AbgHBPRp (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:17:45 -0400 Received: from cmta18.telus.net ([209.171.16.91]:49847 "EHLO cmta18.telus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726542AbgHBPRp (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Aug 2020 11:17:45 -0400 Received: from dougxps ([173.180.45.4]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id 2Fk3k07pBqUs32Fk5kwvbT; Sun, 02 Aug 2020 09:17:43 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telus.net; s=neo; t=1596381463; bh=7yx5DHZVR4Bf4soMGU2O4bZ1p/Atq1qa07SFqPWXFMk=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=VEgQ20gT9SmAepU+aT59dUcwDnchfiz4cegDrR0SYHTpHpUbn+NDC7pEGlIGkGaEy 85NAzOrLvcVdd5btsjek4ZziRxls4hKQZoS+WM5ViznvsdE7jxEg4qk7vC4RBiarDw g2Pqs0zVYREtaQl62fIb2CGhcRgsEnFDz8q4XDsAo8UIqBSaFxxsuhDqQnHSQo9MXO bAHGwW71vOu2YaDCUn28hXlQmrYCWN93sZNq4nAgAAwxmeohjrivQNeNlrf4e4ujzD VVNGAZkNrN9G+GTArvvJlqpv5aLfvnb7pRc0Fm2BkUffFv6CLHnQlT9U7y+GHpzp+8 h6hChavKO9dcw== X-Telus-Authed: none X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=Mo8sFFSe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:117 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:17 a=Pyq9K9CWowscuQLKlpiwfMBGOR0=:19 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=aatUQebYAAAA:8 a=QyXUC8HyAAAA:8 a=UsCfWBr0eeNdIiIU1ZUA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=7715FyvI7WU-l6oqrZBK:22 From: "Doug Smythies" To: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" Cc: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" , "'Linux Documentation'" , "'LKML'" , "'Peter Zijlstra'" , "'Srinivas Pandruvada'" , "'Giovanni Gherdovich'" , "'Francisco Jerez'" , "'Linux PM'" References: <3955470.QvD6XneCf3@kreacher> <000f01d65ae8$0c607990$25216cb0$@net> <001201d65c3f$6e2371c0$4a6a5540$@net> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement passive mode with HWP enabled Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 08:17:39 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01d668e0$11508160$33f18420$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdZdwcgH6zLGOaAfSA21EJrq7yhj/wLHOiKg Content-Language: en-ca X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfG/rL9C52wKK5hP+HOLGpqQlUp5Uzxjhdy/1fHo9eLK3ljt8H899s3S2Q8faN4Wb9ADIOs3Hu1F/eRI7b4HE7kJS0ruT97A6KZ2eEjwzWzwmIVBA89a6 2UDs5MdZjzDAKT9BjZJFfo0aQJWVmuCnXJMEsEXozZqpqZXYEZXbg15F7Psw7Ozr1RQnJvWxRp7rudtd+GZUUBj9LUUTegVBVlFUIke11jelLDNFlrpe8Z2i Rf45OmIcadbzpf/CTH6owFHQiz91lBcmYTq3AQwrRmhmpuls4eBSjLRQiEiVPxrePkJCyTZxYo1vm0wG02dJBwanski3MIrgoSz9vLz7CdTljAKQXE7/WcyE zfRX8fuM+Il1htIJR9lubR8qgrlat8MBK3YMzqJ9c/4vNMU+rwCzQmTyS4MBqQSkU+tSuJ4HI8W0FdCysytdUXHo8Pvsf2lRdhey69heoMgncRo5Toc= Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Hi Rafael, On 2020.07.19 04:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:37 PM Doug Smythies wrote: > > On 2020.07.16 05:08 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:39 PM Doug Smythies wrote: > > >> On 2020.07.14 11:16 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> > > > >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > >> ... > > >> > Since the passive mode hasn't worked with HWP at all, and it is not going to > > >> > the default for HWP systems anyway, I don't see any drawbacks related to making > > >> > this change, so I would consider this as 5.9 material unless there are any > > >> > serious objections. > > >> > > >> Good point. > > > > Actually, for those users that default to passive mode upon boot, > > this would mean they would find themselves using this. > > Also, it isn't obvious, from the typical "what driver and what governor" > > inquiry. > > So the change in behavior is that after this patch > intel_pstate=passive doesn't imply no_hwp any more. > > That's a very minor difference though and I'm not aware of any adverse > effects it can cause on HWP systems anyway. My point was, that it will now default to something where testing has not been completed. > The "what governor" is straightforward in the passive mode: that's > whatever cpufreq governor has been selected. I think you might have missed my point. >From the normal methods of inquiry one does not know if HWP is being used or not. Why? Because with or without HWP one gets the same answers under: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_driver /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor ... Doug