From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752927AbaEMX37 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2014 19:29:59 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f50.google.com ([209.85.192.50]:51731 "EHLO mail-qg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751617AbaEMX3z (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 May 2014 19:29:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 19:29:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre To: Stephen Warren cc: Doug Anderson , Russell King - ARM Linux , Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Will Deacon , John Stultz , David Riley , "olof@lixom.net" , Sonny Rao , Santosh Shilimkar , Shawn Guo , Stephen Boyd , Marc Zyngier , Stephen Warren , Paul Gortmaker , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Don't ever downscale loops_per_jiffy in SMP systems# In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20140508192209.GH3693@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140508205223.GI3693@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140509091824.GL3693@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20140509182245.GM3693@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5372998F.6020502@wwwdotorg.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 13 May 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2014, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > On 05/13/2014 03:50 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > ... > > > ...but then I found the true problem shows up when we transition > > > between very low frequencies on exynos, like between 200MHz and > > > 300MHz. While transitioning between frequencies the system > > > temporarily bumps over to the "switcher" PLL running at 800MHz while > > > waiting for the main PLL to stabilize. No CPUFREQ notification is > > > sent for that. That means there's a period of time when we're running > > > at 800MHz but loops_per_jiffy is calibrated at between 200MHz and > > > 300MHz. > > > > > > > > > I'm welcome to any suggestions for how to address this. It sorta > > > feels like it would be a common thing to have a temporary PLL during > > > the transition, ... > > > > We definitely do that on Tegra for some cpufreq transitions. > > Ouch... If this is a common strategy to use a third frequency during a > transition phase, especially if that frequency is way off (800MHz vs > 200-300MHz) then it is something the cpufreq layer must capture and > advertise. Of course if only the loops_per_jiffy scaling does care about frequency changes these days, and if in those cases udelay() can instead be moved to a timer source on those hick-up prone platforms, then all this is fairly theoretical and may not be worth pursuing. Nicolas