All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: "Premi, Sanjeev" <premi@ti.com>
Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] omap2+: pm: cpufreq: Fix loops_per_jiffy calculation
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:47:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E04A36F.103@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB593024D6C2F08@dbde02.ent.ti.com>

On 6/24/2011 7:40 AM, Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shilimkar, Santosh
>> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 8:05 PM
>> To: Premi, Sanjeev
>> Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] omap2+: pm: cpufreq: Fix
>> loops_per_jiffy calculation
>>
>> On 6/24/2011 7:23 PM, Sanjeev Premi wrote:
>>> Currently, loops_per_jiffy is being calculated twice for
>>> non-SMP processors.
>>>    - Before calling cpufreq_notify_transition()
>>>    - From within cpufreq_notify_transition()
>>>
>>> Double adjustment leads to incorrect value being assigned to
>>> loops_per_jiffy. This manifests as incorrect BogoMIPS in
>>> "cat /proc/cpuinfo".
>>>
>>> The value of loops_per_jiffy needs to be calculated only
>>> when CONFIG_SMP is true. It is the core change included
>>> in this patch.
>>>
>>> The patch also leverages the definition of for_each_cpu()
>>> with and without CONFIG_SMP to consolidate the mechanism
>>> to call cpufreq_notify_transition().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi<premi@ti.com>
>>
>> NAK. This patch again doesn't make sense considering your issue.
>> Also jiffies should not be undated before changing the freq.
>> If the set_rate failed for some reason then you will have wrong
>> jiffies value.
>>
>> I understand your issue now. The code for global lpj updation
>> should have been checking smp_on_up() instead of is_smp().
>> That one line change is enough. I will post a patch on
>> the same once I reach to office.
>
> [sp] Suggest reading the patch before NAKing.
>       The patch is updating the loops_per_jiffy value "AFTER"
>       the frequency change has happenned and "BEFORE" post
>       change notification is sent.
>
Sure. Let me respond to you with the patch instead of making
more noise on the list.

Regard
Santosh

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCHv2] omap2+: pm: cpufreq: Fix loops_per_jiffy calculation
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:47:11 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E04A36F.103@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB593024D6C2F08@dbde02.ent.ti.com>

On 6/24/2011 7:40 AM, Premi, Sanjeev wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shilimkar, Santosh
>> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 8:05 PM
>> To: Premi, Sanjeev
>> Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] omap2+: pm: cpufreq: Fix
>> loops_per_jiffy calculation
>>
>> On 6/24/2011 7:23 PM, Sanjeev Premi wrote:
>>> Currently, loops_per_jiffy is being calculated twice for
>>> non-SMP processors.
>>>    - Before calling cpufreq_notify_transition()
>>>    - From within cpufreq_notify_transition()
>>>
>>> Double adjustment leads to incorrect value being assigned to
>>> loops_per_jiffy. This manifests as incorrect BogoMIPS in
>>> "cat /proc/cpuinfo".
>>>
>>> The value of loops_per_jiffy needs to be calculated only
>>> when CONFIG_SMP is true. It is the core change included
>>> in this patch.
>>>
>>> The patch also leverages the definition of for_each_cpu()
>>> with and without CONFIG_SMP to consolidate the mechanism
>>> to call cpufreq_notify_transition().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sanjeev Premi<premi@ti.com>
>>
>> NAK. This patch again doesn't make sense considering your issue.
>> Also jiffies should not be undated before changing the freq.
>> If the set_rate failed for some reason then you will have wrong
>> jiffies value.
>>
>> I understand your issue now. The code for global lpj updation
>> should have been checking smp_on_up() instead of is_smp().
>> That one line change is enough. I will post a patch on
>> the same once I reach to office.
>
> [sp] Suggest reading the patch before NAKing.
>       The patch is updating the loops_per_jiffy value "AFTER"
>       the frequency change has happenned and "BEFORE" post
>       change notification is sent.
>
Sure. Let me respond to you with the patch instead of making
more noise on the list.

Regard
Santosh

  reply	other threads:[~2011-06-24 14:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-24 13:53 [PATCHv2] omap2+: pm: cpufreq: Fix loops_per_jiffy calculation Sanjeev Premi
2011-06-24 13:53 ` Sanjeev Premi
2011-06-24 13:59 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 13:59   ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 14:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 14:01   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 14:09   ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 14:09     ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 14:14     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 14:14       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 15:12       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 15:12         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 15:34         ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 15:34           ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 17:50         ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 17:50           ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 18:51           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 18:51             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 20:14             ` Kevin Hilman
2011-06-24 20:14               ` Kevin Hilman
2011-06-25 16:20               ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-25 16:20                 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 18:48         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-24 18:48           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-25 18:53           ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-25 18:53             ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-25 19:09             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-25 19:09               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-27  4:54               ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-27  4:54                 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-27  7:40                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-27  7:40                   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-24 14:35 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-24 14:35   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-24 14:40   ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 14:40     ` Premi, Sanjeev
2011-06-24 14:47     ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2011-06-24 14:47       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 22:29 ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 22:29   ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 22:45   ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 22:45     ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 22:56     ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 22:56       ` Colin Cross
     [not found]     ` <CAMbhsRRctHC2wSi7cWjO2Fn_rM7=dMtTrt6PbsVehrgx9SKwzw@mail.gmail.com>
2011-06-28 23:00       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 23:00         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 23:04         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 23:04           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 23:03     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 23:03       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 23:07       ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 23:07         ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-28 22:55   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 22:55     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 22:58     ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 22:58       ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 23:17       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 23:17         ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 23:37         ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 23:37           ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 23:46           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 23:46             ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-28 23:59             ` Colin Cross
2011-06-28 23:59               ` Colin Cross
2011-06-29 14:00               ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-29 14:00                 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-29 16:57                 ` Colin Cross
2011-06-29 16:57                   ` Colin Cross
2011-06-29 18:29         ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-29 18:29           ` Stephen Boyd
2011-06-29 18:43           ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-06-29 18:43             ` Russell King - ARM Linux

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4E04A36F.103@ti.com \
    --to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=premi@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.