Hi, On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 05:23:34PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote: > Hi Taniya, > > Both the patches are missing v9 in their subject line - this threw off > patchwork when trying to download the patches. > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 5:06 PM Taniya Das <tdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Add QCOM cpufreq firmware device bindings for Qualcomm Technology Inc's > > SoCs. This is required for managing the cpu frequency transitions which are > > controlled by the hardware engine. > > I tested these patches on the sdm845-mtp against 4.19 and found that > the frequency gets stuck at the highest opp (the boost frequency) > after running a couple of 'yes > /dev/null &' instances. Have you > tested these against a mainline kernel? > > See cpufreq statistics below: > > linaro-test [rc=0]# cat policy?/scaling_cur_freq > 300000 > 2803200 > > linaro-test [rc=0]# cat policy?/stats/time_in_state > 300000 100840 > 403200 388 > 480000 71 > 576000 54 > 652800 22 > 748800 11 > 825600 5 > 902400 5 > 979200 9 > 1056000 3 > 1132800 2 > 1228800 5 > 1324800 8 > 1420800 2 > 1516800 1 > 1612800 0 > 1689600 0 > 1766400 392 > 825600 22048 > 902400 21 > 979200 4 > 1056000 15 > 1209600 6 > 1286400 0 > 1363200 1 > 1459200 0 > 1536000 0 > 1612800 1 > 1689600 0 > 1766400 0 > 1843200 2 > 1920000 2 > 1996800 0 > 2092800 0 > 2169600 0 > 2246400 0 > 2323200 0 > 2400000 0 > 2476800 0 > 2553600 0 > 2649600 0 > 2707200 0 > 2764800 0 > 2784000 0 > 2803200 79718 I can repro this on SDM845 with a v4.19 kernel. Since the little cores don't have a boost frequency I think maxing out can be expected with a high workload and no thermal throttling. However the big cores have a boost frequency (2.803 MHz), so the driver shouldn't be stuck at it. Though in practice I also wonder if the ~1% 'boost' makes a big difference in terms of performance or CPU overload ... Cheers Matthias
