lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    From
    Subject[PATCH 5.9 238/255] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Take CPUFREQ_GOV_STRICT_TARGET into account
    Date
    From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

    commit fcb3a1ab79904d54499db77017793ccca665eb7e upstream.

    Make intel_pstate take the new CPUFREQ_GOV_STRICT_TARGET governor
    flag into account when it operates in the passive mode with HWP
    enabled, so as to fix the "powersave" governor behavior in that
    case (currently, HWP is allowed to scale the performance all the
    way up to the policy max limit when the "powersave" governor is
    used, but it should be constrained to the policy min limit then).

    Fixes: f6ebbcf08f37 ("cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement passive mode with HWP enabled")
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
    Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
    Cc: 5.9+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.9+: 9a2a9ebc0a75 cpufreq: Introduce governor flags
    Cc: 5.9+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.9+: 218f66870181 cpufreq: Introduce CPUFREQ_GOV_STRICT_TARGET
    Cc: 5.9+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 5.9+: ea9364bbadf1 cpufreq: Add strict_target to struct cpufreq_policy
    Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

    ---
    drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 16 +++++++++-------
    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

    --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
    +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
    @@ -2509,7 +2509,7 @@ static void intel_cpufreq_trace(struct c
    }

    static void intel_cpufreq_adjust_hwp(struct cpudata *cpu, u32 target_pstate,
    - bool fast_switch)
    + bool strict, bool fast_switch)
    {
    u64 prev = READ_ONCE(cpu->hwp_req_cached), value = prev;

    @@ -2521,7 +2521,7 @@ static void intel_cpufreq_adjust_hwp(str
    * field in it, so opportunistically update the max too if needed.
    */
    value &= ~HWP_MAX_PERF(~0L);
    - value |= HWP_MAX_PERF(cpu->max_perf_ratio);
    + value |= HWP_MAX_PERF(strict ? target_pstate : cpu->max_perf_ratio);

    if (value == prev)
    return;
    @@ -2544,14 +2544,16 @@ static void intel_cpufreq_adjust_perf_ct
    pstate_funcs.get_val(cpu, target_pstate));
    }

    -static int intel_cpufreq_update_pstate(struct cpudata *cpu, int target_pstate,
    - bool fast_switch)
    +static int intel_cpufreq_update_pstate(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
    + int target_pstate, bool fast_switch)
    {
    + struct cpudata *cpu = all_cpu_data[policy->cpu];
    int old_pstate = cpu->pstate.current_pstate;

    target_pstate = intel_pstate_prepare_request(cpu, target_pstate);
    if (hwp_active) {
    - intel_cpufreq_adjust_hwp(cpu, target_pstate, fast_switch);
    + intel_cpufreq_adjust_hwp(cpu, target_pstate,
    + policy->strict_target, fast_switch);
    cpu->pstate.current_pstate = target_pstate;
    } else if (target_pstate != old_pstate) {
    intel_cpufreq_adjust_perf_ctl(cpu, target_pstate, fast_switch);
    @@ -2591,7 +2593,7 @@ static int intel_cpufreq_target(struct c
    break;
    }

    - target_pstate = intel_cpufreq_update_pstate(cpu, target_pstate, false);
    + target_pstate = intel_cpufreq_update_pstate(policy, target_pstate, false);

    freqs.new = target_pstate * cpu->pstate.scaling;

    @@ -2610,7 +2612,7 @@ static unsigned int intel_cpufreq_fast_s

    target_pstate = DIV_ROUND_UP(target_freq, cpu->pstate.scaling);

    - target_pstate = intel_cpufreq_update_pstate(cpu, target_pstate, true);
    + target_pstate = intel_cpufreq_update_pstate(policy, target_pstate, true);

    return target_pstate * cpu->pstate.scaling;
    }

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2020-11-17 14:45    [W:4.077 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site