[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting
On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:05 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 2:29:26 PM CEST Giovanni Gherdovich
> wrote:
> > From: Srinivas Pandruvada <>
> >
> > intel_pstate has two operating modes: active and passive. In
> > "active"
> > mode, the in-built scaling governor is used and in "passive" mode,
> > the driver can be used with any governor like "schedutil". In
> > "active"
> > mode the utilization values from schedutil is not used and there is
> > a requirement from high performance computing use cases, not to
> > readas well
> Well, this isn't quite convincing.
> In particular, I don't see why the "don't read APERF/MPERF MSRs"
> argument
> applies *only* to intel_pstate in the "active" mode. What about
> intel_pstate
> in the "passive" mode combined with the "performance" governor? Or
> any other
> governor different from "schedutil" for that matter?
> And what about acpi_cpufreq combined with any governor different from
> "schedutil"?
> Scale invariance is not really needed in all of those cases right now
> or is it?
Correct. This is just part of the patch to disable in active mode
(particularly in HWP and performance mode).

But this patch is 2 years old. The folks who wanted this, disable
intel-pstate and use userspace governor with acpi-cpufreq. So may be
better to address those cases too.

> So is the real concern that intel_pstate in the "active" mode reads
> the MPERF
> and APERF MSRs by itself and that kind of duplicates what the scale
> invariance
> code does and is redundant etc?
It is redundant in non-HWP mode. In HWP and performance (active mode)
we don't use atleast at this time.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-04 05:32    [W:0.094 / U:0.828 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site