From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Shi Subject: Re: bltk-game regressions on snb laptop Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:43:32 +0800 Message-ID: <51715814.4080209@intel.com> References: <516CFA57.3060709@intel.com> <516F42EE.6080802@intel.com> <516F81BD.3030306@intel.com> <516FB4AF.6060009@intel.com> <517115D4.5020505@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:20714 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030720Ab3DSOnu (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:43:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Linux PM list , "Brown, Len" , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , Arjan van de Ven , LKP ML On 04/19/2013 08:23 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > So you get better performance without my patch because we don't allocate > any struct cpufreq_policy for any of the cpus leaving first one. And so only > manage freq change for it and all other cpus stay at max power.. > > So, we clearly need to know why don't we want to have all cpus set in > policy->cpus, when they actually share clock line? AFAIK, That because our p-state is HW coordinated. For further info, Maybe Arjan and Len can explain more. -- Thanks Alex