On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 11:10:33AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-06-17, 06:53, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 09:04:25AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > 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,
>
> speedstep-smi is the only one which sets transition_latency to
> CPUFREQ_ETERNAL and the others are putting some meaningful values. So
> yes, they should be doing DVFS dynamically.
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, as I understand it, first generation "speedstep" was designed more or
> > less to switch frequencies only when AC power was lost or restored.
> >
> > The Linux implementation merely said: "no on-the-fly changes", but switch
> > frequencies whenever a user explicitly requested such a change (presumably
> > only every once in an unspecified while).
> >
> > This same reasoning may be present in other drivers using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL.
>
> Thanks for the explanation here and I am convinced that this series
> has at least done one thing wrong. And that is removal of
> max_transition_latency from governors and allowing ondemand to run on
> such platforms (which may end up breaking them).
>
> So I will actually modify that patch and set max_transition_latency to
> CPUFREQ_ETERNAL for ondemand/conservative instead of 10ms. Also we
> should do the same for schedutil as well, so that will also use the
> max_transition_latency field.
>
> But I hope, this patch will still be fine. Right ?
Indeed, I have no comments otherwise. Thanks!
Best
Dominik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
