From: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: governor: Drop min_sampling_rate
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 20:01:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170629180123.GA2443@light.dominikbrodowski.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <713af1a417a9a77f0c41976b25874687ac235e8e.1498733506.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 04:29:06PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The cpufreq core and governors aren't supposed to set a limit on how
> fast we want to try changing the frequency. This is currently done for
> the legacy governors with help of min_sampling_rate.
>
> At worst, we may end up setting the sampling rate to a value lower than
> the rate at which frequency can be changed and then one of the CPUs in
> the policy will be only changing frequency for ever.
Is it safe to issue requests to change the CPU frequency so frequently, even
on historic hardware such as speedstep-{ich,smi,centrino}? In the past,
these checks more or less disallowed the running of dynamic frequency
scaling at least on speedstep-smi[*], but maybe on a few other platforms as
well. That's why I am curious on whether this may break systems potentially
on a hardware level if the hardware was not designed to do dynamic frequency
scaling (and not just frequency switches on battery/AC).
Best,
Dominik
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-29 18:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-29 10:59 [PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: transition-latency cleanups Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 10:59 ` [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Don't check for max_transition_latency Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 10:59 ` [PATCH 2/6] cpufreq: Remove (now) unused code related to max_transition_latency Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 10:59 ` [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: governor: Drop min_sampling_rate Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 18:01 ` Dominik Brodowski [this message]
2017-06-30 3:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-06-30 4:53 ` Dominik Brodowski
2017-06-30 5:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-02 7:23 ` Dominik Brodowski
2017-06-29 10:59 ` [PATCH 4/6] cpufreq: Use transition_delay_us for legacy governors as well Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 10:59 ` [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value to 10 ms Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 10:59 ` [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: arm_big_little: Make ->get_transition_latency() mandatory Viresh Kumar
2017-06-29 20:36 ` [PATCH 0/6] cpufreq: transition-latency cleanups Rafael J. Wysocki
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=20170629180123.GA2443@light.dominikbrodowski.net \
--to=linux@dominikbrodowski.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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).