From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: smp: Introduce ARCH_HAS_COMMON_CORES_CLOCKtospeed-up boot
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 12:55:25 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8d59200413b98810a4e7c2039ffb9a77@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110122212017.GA17725@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 2:50 AM
> To: Santosh Shilimkar
> Cc: Rob Herring; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; Linus Walleij; linux-
> arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: smp: Introduce
> ARCH_HAS_COMMON_CORES_CLOCKtospeed-up boot
>
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 01:14:21PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > Surely whichever way we should remove the recalibration otherwise
> > every time secondary cpus spend ~ 200 ms there.
> >
> > Russell,
> > How do you like to address this?
>
> Well, the last piece of the puzzle which needs consideration is that
> omitting the calibration means that it produces user-visible
> /proc/cpuinfo changes. I can't say what effect that has. So, I
> think we need to do something about that to ensure that userspace
> won't be impacted should they be using the information in there.
>
Ok. /proc/cpuinfo uses the per-cpu lpj which gets updated as mentioned
as part of the arch cpufreq drivers. So this not seems to be the
problem.
> Maybe we need to initialize the secondary CPU bogomips values
> accordingly? Maybe zero is acceptable to mark that the calculation
> hasn't been done? Dunno.
The only issue is global lpj not getting updated as part of CPU
scaling. This is anyway broken today on SMP machines even without
cpufreq. It's getting corrected as part of the hotplug path if
recalibration is carried out. And same value gets copied to
per-cpu lpj for the secondary cores.
The above gets completely wrong if the individual CPUs can
scale with different speed.
Since per-cpu lpj is suppose to be taken care by scaling
Code, /proc/cpuinfo will get updated with right information.
With this, I think we could safely skip secondary cpu
calibration.
Regards,
Santosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-23 7:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-20 9:42 [PATCH] ARM: smp: Introduce ARCH_HAS_COMMON_CORES_CLOCK to speed-up boot Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-20 15:14 ` Rob Herring
2011-01-20 15:36 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-20 16:34 ` Rob Herring
2011-01-21 13:43 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-21 14:23 ` Linus Walleij
2011-01-21 15:00 ` Rob Herring
2011-01-21 17:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-22 7:44 ` [PATCH] ARM: smp: Introduce ARCH_HAS_COMMON_CORES_CLOCK tospeed-up boot Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-22 21:20 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-23 7:25 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2011-01-21 17:08 ` [PATCH] ARM: smp: Introduce ARCH_HAS_COMMON_CORES_CLOCK to speed-up boot Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-20 16:21 ` Linus Walleij
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=8d59200413b98810a4e7c2039ffb9a77@mail.gmail.com \
--to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).