On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 3:18 PM Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Thu, Dec 29 2022, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 1:58 PM Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Rafael, > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 28 2022, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > When _PPC returns 0, it means that the CPU frequency is not limited by > >> > the platform firmware, so make acpi_processor_get_platform_limit() > >> > update the frequency QoS request used by it to "no limit" in that case. > >> > > >> > This addresses a problem with limiting CPU frequency artificially on > >> > some systems after CPU offline/online to the frequency that corresponds > >> > to the first entry in the _PSS return package. > >> > > >> > Reported-by: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > [...] > >> > >> One small thing I noticed: in acpi_processor_ppc_init() "no limit" value > >> is set to INT_MAX and here it is set to FREQ_QOS_MAX_DEFAULT_VALUE. Both > >> should evaluate to the same value but I think it would be nice if the > >> same thing is used in both places. Perhaps you can fix that up when > >> applying? > > > > Yes, I'll do that. > > Following up on this series. I do not see it queued anywhere in the > linux-pm [0] tree. I would like to have this in the v6.3 merge window if > possible. > > [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/ It's already in the mainline: e8a0e30b742f cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop ACPI _PSS states table patching 99387b016022 ACPI: processor: perflib: Avoid updating frequency QoS unnecessarily c02d5feb6e2f ACPI: processor: perflib: Use the "no limit" frequency QoS
