On 8/27/2024 09:50, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 04:13:53PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
If the boost ratio isn't calculated properly for the system for any
reason this can cause other problems that are non-obvious.
Raise all messages to warn instead.
Suggested-by: Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
index 1d631ac5ec328..e94507110ca24 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/cppc.c
@@ -75,17 +75,17 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
rc = cppc_get_perf_caps(0, &perf_caps);
if (rc) {
- pr_debug("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc);
+ pr_warn("Could not retrieve perf counters (%d)\n", rc);
return;
}
rc = amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator(0, &highest_perf);
if (rc)
- pr_debug("Could not retrieve highest performance\n");
+ pr_warn("Could not retrieve highest performance\n");
nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf;
if (!nominal_perf) {
- pr_debug("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n");
+ pr_warn("Could not retrieve nominal performance\n");
return;
}
@@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ static void amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void)
/* midpoint between max_boost and max_P */
perf_ratio = (perf_ratio + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> 1;
if (!perf_ratio) {
- pr_debug("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n");
+ pr_warn("Non-zero highest/nominal perf values led to a 0 ratio\n");
return;
Aside:
perf_ratio is a u64, and SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE is (1L << 10). Thus, is
it even possible to have !perf_ratio?
Otherwise, I am ok with this promotion of pr_debug to pr_warn.
You're right; I don't see this is possible. I'll tear it out in a
prerequisite patch in v2.
Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@xxxxxxx>
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
