https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64261 --- Comment #5 from Doug Smythies <dsmythies@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Dirk, There are cases, i.e. when investigating error in load averages where one wants to lock the CPU at whatever frequency. I realize it was not the goal of intel_pstate, but still needs to be allowed for. Regardless, I am merely using this as a way to easily demonstrate the issue. ".53 * 34 = 18.03 (so we are off by 3 percent of a pstate due to truncation)" No, I am arguing that it is off by 103 percent of a pstate due to truncation. I am also arguing that if rounding is used there will never be more than a half of a pstate discrepancy between desired and actual instead of 1 pstate. I am also arguing that it will help at the 100% end, where right now it might struggle to get to 100% on some processors. For your examples, I am saying it should be: Turbo: int(.42 * 38 + 0.5) = 16 int(.43 * 38 + 0.5) = 16 int(.44 * 38 + 0.5) = 17 int(.45 * 38 + 0.5) = 17 Turbo off: int(.50 * 34 + 0.5) = 17 int(.51 * 34 + 0.5) = 17 int(.52 * 34 + 0.5) = 18 int(.53 * 34 + 0.5) = 18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
