Hi,
Sebastian Hesselbarth writes:
>> - I think we could also drop the call to ->set_config since presumably an
>>of-enabled driver grabbed any required info already from the dt.
>[...]
>> I think this way we could still share encoder slaves across tons of
>> platforms, only the init sequence
Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
> Enable HWP boost on Skylake server and workstations.
>
Please revert this series, it led to significant energy usage and
graphics performance regressions [1]. The reasons are roughly the ones
we discussed by e-mail off-list last April: This causes the intel_pstate
Mel Gorman writes:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:34:03PM -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
>>
>> > Enable HWP boost on Skylake server and workstations.
>> >
>>
>> Please revert this series, it led to significant energy usa
Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
> On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 22:34 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
>>
>> > Enable HWP boost on Skylake server and workstations.
>> >
>>
>> Please revert this series, it led to significant energy
"Pandruvada, Srinivas" writes:
> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 07:14 -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>> On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 22:34 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> > Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
>> >
>> > > Enable HWP boost on Skylake server and wo
Mel Gorman writes:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 01:21:51PM -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> >> Please revert this series, it led to significant energy usage and
>> >> graphics performance regressions [1]. The reasons are roughly the ones
>> >> we discus
ants to get benefit of boost, they can still enable boost from
> intel_pstate sysfs attribute "hwp_dynamic_boost".
>
> Fixes: 41ab43c9c89e (cpufreq: intel_pstate: enable boost for Skylake Xeon)
> Link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107410
> Reported-by: Eero T
Giovanni Gherdovich writes:
> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 11:32 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> Mel Gorman writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 01:21:51PM -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> > > > > Please revert this series, it led to significant energy
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 8:53 AM Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:35:15 PM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Rafa
mposes some significant overhead as compared to
> DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file_unsafe().
>
> Generated by: scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
>
> Fixes: 9eec7989e762 ("OPTIONAL: cpufreq/intel_pstate: Expose LP controller
> parameters via
Fabio Estevam writes:
> Hi Julia,
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>> Use DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE rather than DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE
>> for debugfs files.
>>
>> Semantic patch information:
>> Rationale: DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE + debugfs_create_file()
>> imposes some
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Wednesday, July 29, 2020 7:46:08 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>> --==-=-=
>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
>>
>> --=-=-=
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
caller of that function,
> so as to do it before acquiring the mutex, and reduce code duplication
> related to the "raw" EPP values processing somewhat.
>
> No intentional functional impact.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
Reviewed-by:
l happen
in the P-state range above the base frequency. Another minor comment
below, other than that LGTM:
Reviewed-by: Francisco Jerez
> [If P-states of the CPUs in the same package are coordinated at the
> hardware level, a non-HWP processor may choose a P-state above the
>
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 2:49:34 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>
> [cut]
>
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> No, I explicitly dismissed that in my previous reply.
>> >> >> >
>> &g
kernel test robot writes:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
>
> commit: 48fc4efcdd584e8f04da8b195262ec38221bd6db ("[PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq:
> intel_pstate: Implement passive mode with HWP enabled")
> url:
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Rafael-J-
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 7:35:15 PM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:20:08 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote
Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
> On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 23:53 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> Eero Tamminen writes:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 31.08.2018 20:28, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
>> > ...
>> > > As per testing Eero Tamminen,
Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
> [...]
>
>> > >
>> > > This patch causes a number of statistically significant
>> > > regressions
>> > > (with significance of 1%) on the two systems I've tested it
>> > > on. On
>> > > my
>> >
>> > Sure. These patches are targeted to Atom clients where some of
>>
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 6:20:08 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>> --==-=-=
>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
>>
>> --=-=-=
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
Eero Tamminen writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 31.08.2018 20:28, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> ...
>> As per testing Eero Tamminen, the results are comparable to the patchset
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10312259/
>> But he has to watch results for several days to check trend.
>
> It's close, but the
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:39 AM Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > Allow intel_pstate to work in the passive mode with HWP
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> to On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:57 PM Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 3:39 AM Francisco Jerez
>> > wrote:
>> >>
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Allow intel_pstate to work in the passive mode with HWP enabled and
> make it translate the target frequency supplied by the cpufreq
> governor in use into an EPP value to be written to the HWP request
> MSR (high frequencies are mapped t
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:21 AM Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:35 PM Francisco Jerez
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "R
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>
> Allow intel_pstate to work in the passive mode with HWP enabled and
> make it set the HWP minimum performance limit (HWP floor) to the
> P-state value given by the target frequency supplied by the cpufreq
> governor, so as to prevent the
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:09 AM Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki
>> >
>> > Allow intel_pstate to work in the passive mode with HWP enabl
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:20:14 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>> >
>> > However, in the active mode the only updater of hwp_req_cached is
>> > intel_pstate_hwp_set() and this patch doesn't i
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 4:32:22 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:20:14 AM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> >
>> > [cut]
HWP boost utility and sched
> util hooks")
> Reported-by: Francisco Jerez
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki
Reviewed-by: Francisco Jerez
> ---
>
> This patch is on top of https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11689347/
>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c |
Srinivas Pandruvada writes:
> On Mon, 2020-07-20 at 16:20 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:21 AM Francisco Jerez <
>> > curroje...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> > > "Rafae
"Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:35 PM Francisco Jerez
> wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:09 AM Francisco Jerez
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> &qu
32 matches
Mail list logo
