On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Srinivas, > > On Sat, Dec 24 2022, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > > > On Fri, 2022-12-23 at 10:10 -0800, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > >> Hi Pratyush, > >> > >> On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 11:39 +0100, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi Srinivas, > >> > > >> > On Wed, Dec 21 2022, srinivas pandruvada wrote: > >> > > On Wed, 2022-12-21 at 16:52 +0100, Pratyush Yadav wrote: > >> > > > When a processor is brought offline and online again, it is > >> > > > unable to > >> > > > use Turbo mode because the _PSS table does not contain the whole > >> > > > turbo > >> > > > frequency range, but only +1 MHz above the max non-turbo > >> > > > frequency. > >> > > > This > >> > > > causes problems when ACPI processor driver tries to set frequency > >> > > > constraints. See patch 2 for more details. > >> > > > > >> I can reproduce on a Broadwell server platform. But not on a client > >> system with acpi_ppc usage. > >> > >> Need to check what change broke this. > > > > When PPC limits enforcement changed to PM QOS, this broke. Previously > > acpi_processor_get_platform_limit() was not enforcing any limits. It > > was just setting variable. So any update done after > > acpi_register_performance_state() call to pr->performance- > >>states[ppc].core_frequency, was effective. > > > > We don't really need to call > > ret = freq_qos_update_request(&pr->perflib_req, > > pr->performance->states[ppc].core_frequency * > > 1000); > > > > if the PPC is not changed. When PPC is changed, this gets called again, > > so then we can call the above function to update cpufreq limit. > > > > The below change fixed for me. > > Right. Should I re-roll my patches with your diff below then? Or do you > think my patches should be good to merge as-is? No, they are not good to merge.
