On 29-06-17, 20:01, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:29:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > The cpufreq core and governors aren't supposed to set a limit on how
> > fast we want to try changing the frequency. This is currently done for
> > the legacy governors with help of min_sampling_rate.
> >
> > At worst, we may end up setting the sampling rate to a value lower than
> > the rate at which frequency can be changed and then one of the CPUs in
> > the policy will be only changing frequency for ever.
>
> Is it safe to issue requests to change the CPU frequency so frequently,
Well, I assumed so. I am not sure the hardware would break though.
Overheating ?
> even
> on historic hardware such as speedstep-{ich,smi,centrino}? In the past,
> these checks more or less disallowed the running of dynamic frequency
> scaling at least on speedstep-smi[*],
We must by doing dynamic freq scaling even without this patch. I don't
see why you say the above then.
All we do here is that we get rid of the limit on how soon we can
change the freq again.
> but maybe on a few other platforms as
> well. That's why I am curious on whether this may break systems potentially
> on a hardware level if the hardware was not designed to do dynamic frequency
> scaling (and not just frequency switches on battery/AC).
Honestly I am not sure if any hardware can break or not, just because
of this commit.
--
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
