Hi Rafael, On 2020.07.19 04:43 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:37 PM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2020.07.16 05:08 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 10:39 PM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 2020.07.14 11:16 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > >> > > > >> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > >> ... > > >> > Since the passive mode hasn't worked with HWP at all, and it is not going to > > >> > the default for HWP systems anyway, I don't see any drawbacks related to making > > >> > this change, so I would consider this as 5.9 material unless there are any > > >> > serious objections. > > >> > > >> Good point. > > > > Actually, for those users that default to passive mode upon boot, > > this would mean they would find themselves using this. > > Also, it isn't obvious, from the typical "what driver and what governor" > > inquiry. > > So the change in behavior is that after this patch > intel_pstate=passive doesn't imply no_hwp any more. > > That's a very minor difference though and I'm not aware of any adverse > effects it can cause on HWP systems anyway. My point was, that it will now default to something where testing has not been completed. > The "what governor" is straightforward in the passive mode: that's > whatever cpufreq governor has been selected. I think you might have missed my point. >From the normal methods of inquiry one does not know if HWP is being used or not. Why? Because with or without HWP one gets the same answers under: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_driver /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpufreq/scaling_governor ... Doug
