"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:10 PM Francisco Jerez wrote: >> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:09 AM Francisco Jerez wrote: >> >> >> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:31 AM Francisco Jerez wrote: >> >> >> > >> > >> > [cut] >> > >> >> > >> >> > And BTW, posting patches as RFC is fine even if they have not been >> >> > tested. At least you let people know that you work on something this >> >> > way, so if they work on changes in the same area, they may take that >> >> > into consideration. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Sure, that was going to be the first RFC. >> >> >> >> > Also if there are objections to your proposal, you may save quite a >> >> > bit of time by sending it early. >> >> > >> >> > It is unfortunate that this series has clashed with the changes that >> >> > you were about to propose, but in this particular case in my view it >> >> > is better to clean up things and start over. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Luckily it doesn't clash with the second RFC I was meaning to send, >> >> maybe we should just skip the first? >> > >> > Yes, please. >> > >> >> Or maybe it's valuable as a curiosity anyway? >> > >> > No, let's just focus on the latest one. >> > >> > Thanks! >> >> We don't seem to have reached much of an agreement on the general >> direction of RFC2, so I can't really get started with it. Here is RFC1 >> for the record: >> >> https://github.com/curro/linux/commits/intel_pstate-lp-hwp-v10.8-alt > > Appreciate the link, but that hasn't been posted to linux-pm yet, so > there's not much to discuss. > > And when you post it, please rebase it on top of linux-next. > >> Specifically the following patch conflicts with this series: >> >> https://github.com/curro/linux/commit/9a16f35531bbb76d38493da892ece088e31dc2e0 >> >> Series improves performance-per-watt of GfxBench gl_4 (AKA Car Chase) by >> over 15% on my system with the branch above, actual FPS "only" improves >> about 5.9% on ICL laptop due to it being very lightly TDP-bound with its >> rather huge TDP. The performance of almost every graphics benchmark >> I've tried improves significantly with it (a number of SynMark >> test-cases are improved by around 40% in perf-per-watt, Egypt >> perf-per-watt improves by about 25%). >> >> Hopefully we can come up with some alternative plan of action. > > It is very easy to replace the patch above with an alternative one on > top of linux-next that will add CPU_RESPONSE_FREQUENCY QoS along the > lines of the CPU latency QoS implementation in there without the need > restore to global QoS classes. > > IOW, you don't really need the code that goes away in linux-next to > implement what you need. > > Thanks! Sure, I'll do that.