On Thursday, August 6, 2020 7:54:47 AM CEST Doug Smythies wrote: > On 2020.08.03 10:09 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, August 2, 2020 5:17:39 PM CEST Doug Smythies wrote: > > > 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? > > Yes, fair enough. > But we aren't changing what it means by default > between kernel 5.8 and 5.9-rc1. No, we aren't. The only (expected) change is when booting with intel_pstate=passive and without intel_pstate=no_hwp in the command line. Which should be easy enough to address by adding intel_pstate=no_hwp to the command line in 5.9-rc1 and later (to achieve the same behavior after a fresh boot). Cheers!
