From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT][Update][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Update max CPU
 frequency on global turbo changes
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 12:44:06 +0100
Message-ID: <20190305114406.GV32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <9956076.F4luUDm1Dq@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <20190305104256.7kvedlttuovmptpc@queper01-lin>
 <2336151.IZk3Z8DVvP@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <6357319.Iupbu3ldGQ@aspire.rjw.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6357319.Iupbu3ldGQ@aspire.rjw.lan>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>, Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 11:58:37AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> So after the Peter's patch "sched/cpufreq: Fix 32bit math overflow"
> I will need to recompute sg_cpu->min in sugov_limits().

So there's still an open question; do we want that ->min thing to depend
on available frequencies _at_all_ ?

I'm thinking it might be a good thing to have the iowait boost curve be
independent of all that.

Like said; if we set it at 128 (static), it takes 9 consequtive wake-ups
for it to reach 1024 (max). While now the curve depends on how wide the
gap is between min_freq and max_freq. And it seems weird to have this
behaviour depend on that. To me at least.

Now, I don't know if 128/9 is the right curve, it is just a random
number I pulled out of a hat. But it seems to make more sense than
depending on frequencies.