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,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 58739C433EB for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F77A204FD for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telus.net header.i=@telus.net header.b="cYf8dodn" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728049AbgHFFyz (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 01:54:55 -0400 Received: from cmta19.telus.net ([209.171.16.92]:44036 "EHLO cmta19.telus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728000AbgHFFyy (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 01:54:54 -0400 Received: from dougxps ([173.180.45.4]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id 3YrYk5XS8pULu3YrakoH4d; Wed, 05 Aug 2020 23:54:52 -0600 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telus.net; s=neo; t=1596693292; bh=ZKRCmfmY7qH1fYpcTFnkxc4BBI/P+hB+ur+vMXpXInE=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=cYf8dodneEcXRANPNqohD4vRf1YhXlcXh+fZWg+2Jpa1HXqUO2bj5cP5bpDrWkJS0 X7+zOH4JQQfAMo5ic0hieekcLF9p3HF+QsJZsjBRosQsNFooHK/kQns4dAFI3Kh9Ge I8iAo5spxKcKv/oAGRsnfAs7LRKvxW7lc2D+C6pfxJb+Ry5qUOYjl6akaRzTGi/6F3 zApE5gUaCFg8aHpOZWv25TdEH+moCwYM1wGTg/+FTcWsp9aPgkqTO0Gn8ISSNzBNtG BGhNRK6aKyCFKTWhIrQ+aeW4HkY/C0H5Ose+61dlfQI41X4v8G8EBSRT4ZEzRXvg/j 1OPSO+pjToeCQ== X-Telus-Authed: none X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=T9TysMCQ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:117 a=zJWegnE7BH9C0Gl4FFgQyA==:17 a=Pyq9K9CWowscuQLKlpiwfMBGOR0=:19 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=aatUQebYAAAA:8 a=QyXUC8HyAAAA:8 a=kxsy6qjK8mjSY2g15b0A:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA: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> <000b01d668e0$11508160$33f18420$@net> <2418846.A4mPlhI7ni@kreacher> In-Reply-To: <2418846.A4mPlhI7ni@kreacher> Subject: RE: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement passive mode with HWP enabled Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2020 22:54:47 -0700 Message-ID: <004601d66bb6$199ce1a0$4cd6a4e0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AdZpuL2bqTQ7WVOQQDGjuypkZ2m0fQB/FDrw Content-Language: en-ca X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNeNeYgtpMCRSyru0hnnAznLpIvQeKA3hO2SbSq2DdMtsX1dcU3AOaz5jRYZe1Iu0rbgkIfXcTLyKRhaShDxshuUaj9DoQntc+bLcKc49Db9p0A/+hWz Dd3hddYsNbsTFxopZ/1W/irsqKGQhKR8z8jxhWkkD8EzhVVgLBLVHSWDfStldxgh2bYmWTEhlaDQxjxPGC92XkZZTiExZ/ExFAkfOtITCbNG6NLdpBNMbg6Y 5M72MeZwaq2pTBpAk6kaN19cL33Q2WhVc+FNCBYY2Flo8VDCNbZzwX4UPWkm+ForjdlxnYPZZuMpVeGqhHMqmShyvpH2ahM98DqCtL9y7MDrGA5bAe2LWxG0 hDYmWeXFH865H/0xbJ/+KhVci6lsaTbaOmAKo+j0OtfOnREeoVf7aNKWorjmjmHNy4CR6tXjYqlUV7/JdBbQTD3jg5C+6568AfSvZ9iBSMyxKGTralE= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020.08.03 10:09 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, August 2, 2020 5:17:39 PM CEST Doug Smythies wrote: > > 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 > > Yes, but this is also the case in the active mode, isn't it? Yes, fair enough. But we aren't changing what it means by default between kernel 5.8 and 5.9-rc1. ... Doug