On Sunday, August 2, 2020 5:17:39 PM CEST Doug Smythies wrote: > 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 Yes, but this is also the case in the active mode, isn't it? Thanks!
