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=-5.4 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,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 D3C65C433E2 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 06:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924A221582 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 06:12:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="RdWmnUTR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725803AbgIGGMF (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:12:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51088 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725823AbgIGGMD (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 02:12:03 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x643.google.com (mail-pl1-x643.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::643]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9CEDC061573 for ; Sun, 6 Sep 2020 23:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x643.google.com with SMTP id r24so1063068pls.1 for ; Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:12:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nwfDt8r0FFxI94uOTy5nUUE9dpoo9ucjDC826xRAHEs=; b=RdWmnUTRghIGlypN/+rErqMOa0Yg9EhOyyB+9YiIc89y5b/84E69P00KPUURWt45vI 1i6hlDIqilO/79vhKrR1bBxm5KIIFxkw23ziv6o6zgUhRLOvwNAxY4kUu5Tel0/9/xl8 ff+0U2b2bBGiSCpZ5hyf3A3ovBOeAsSgRRrwqyAbptAr9Ah2YmDgI5DNU5l2qdH1f7hs IZJCbkScUN5Jjv8U19S0vO5l+nV+ZhLO+ArKdwpUvP9ZKudLRJGN9nm0plIOEKKOakr6 TBsZfrnEZpU1SN8pbt8APKcNfv87D6F2ldHk1TLPoYUz7nuVzG7ZRj1u8xghCHgI5ird fJfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=nwfDt8r0FFxI94uOTy5nUUE9dpoo9ucjDC826xRAHEs=; b=sPO7T9exNc8c4cDEgd8HZb5/hiPKTrVmkADlLLi7ml1mibZ69ZyOFJA5o+k6qrbE47 EpQoO4J8MZ+JftRPrJS6sR0KZn0iqtfo2u4/n92PJspko/MxVnOGJS99MYPPqFQnUIXO bB5S0Mc+3rkOGxi8SqzGEZ9HQL/kJ1GdUfN2NmKOM4IeO3Wtb1+e0xZXBlZaxxbBjt44 y/ZD4U499AeNk1o1J8m6SiY2bjc3TSVSymJmt+xNHsxpuWIQXKjAunReayM1G4y6PQVp J6q6CtchCvazIiuduvUHy6pU8smDROVjlzg+Hu0PvNmW/0N1pE2xGbMYCXuZTibipy12 i7/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530jNd9meYOFTDmlyZzgp+/azsAo6mCPlwaHOdIbL/nfl/kDQdQm CI9Z/GST4k5vWIVJpaHzo57YwCwWS6mvVw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXIcxBcY1dyA6eSqz/P+UKb/0TLMDBhuiYIHDbS48jQyDmiKFYOrcEZo0Qr12Qcr58IQ41xw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ad8b:: with SMTP id s11mr18924661pjq.40.1599459122404; Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([122.181.47.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l20sm13907048pfc.72.2020.09.06.23.12.00 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 06 Sep 2020 23:12:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:41:54 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Ionela Voinescu Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, sudeep.holla@arm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq,cppc: fix issue when hotplugging out policy->cpu Message-ID: <20200907061154.iiyaq4m3vjtrlkp4@vireshk-i7> References: <20200903111955.31029-1-ionela.voinescu@arm.com> <20200904050604.yoar2c6fofcikipp@vireshk-i7> <20200904094303.GA10031@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200904094303.GA10031@arm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52 Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 04-09-20, 10:43, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Do you know why it was designed this way in the first place? No. > I assumed it was designed like this (per-cpu cppc_cpudata structures) to > allow for the future addition of support for the HW_ALL CPPC coordination > type. In that case you can still have PSD (dependency) domains but the > desired performance controls would be per-cpu, with the coordination > done in hardware/firmware. So, in the HW_ALL case you'd end up having > different performance controls even for CPUs in the same policy. > Currently the CPPC driver only supports SW_ANY which is the traditional > cpufreq approach. Then the person who would add that feature will take care of fixing the issues then. We should make sure we handle the current use-case optimally. And a per-cpu thing isn't working well for that. -- viresh