From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Preeti U Murthy Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] cpufreq: powernv: Call throttle_check() on receiving OCC_THROTTLE Date: Fri, 08 May 2015 09:16:44 +0530 Message-ID: <554C31A4.8050903@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1430729652-14813-1-git-send-email-shilpa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5548824C.2030602@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <554B584A.3030507@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4161534.4Jyd5dl4um@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from e17.ny.us.ibm.com ([129.33.205.207]:59064 "EHLO e17.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbbEHDqw (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 23:46:52 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e17.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 7 May 2015 23:46:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4161534.4Jyd5dl4um@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Shilpasri G Bhat , viresh.kumar@linaro.org On 05/08/2015 02:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thursday, May 07, 2015 05:49:22 PM Preeti U Murthy wrote: >> On 05/05/2015 02:11 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: >>> On 05/05/2015 12:03 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote: >>>> Hi Preeti, >>>> >>>> On 05/05/2015 09:30 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: >>>>> Hi Shilpa, >>>>> >>>>> On 05/04/2015 02:24 PM, Shilpasri G Bhat wrote: >>>>>> Re-evaluate the chip's throttled state on recieving OCC_THROTTLE >>>>>> notification by executing *throttle_check() on any one of the cpu on >>>>>> the chip. This is a sanity check to verify if we were indeed >>>>>> throttled/unthrottled after receiving OCC_THROTTLE notification. >>>>>> >>>>>> We cannot call *throttle_check() directly from the notification >>>>>> handler because we could be handling chip1's notification in chip2. So >>>>>> initiate an smp_call to execute *throttle_check(). We are irq-disabled >>>>>> in the notification handler, so use a worker thread to smp_call >>>>>> throttle_check() on any of the cpu in the chipmask. >>>>> >>>>> I see that the first patch takes care of reporting *per-chip* throttling >>>>> for pmax capping condition. But where are we taking care of reporting >>>>> "pstate set to safe" and "freq control disabled" scenarios per-chip ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> IMO let us not have "psafe" and "freq control disabled" states managed per-chip. >>>> Because when the above two conditions occur it is likely to happen across all >>>> chips during an OCC reset cycle. So I am setting 'throttled' to false on >>>> OCC_ACTIVE and re-verifying if it actually is the case by invoking >>>> *throttle_check(). >>> >>> Alright like I pointed in the previous reply, a comment to indicate that >>> psafe and freq control disabled conditions will fail when occ is >>> inactive and that all chips face the consequence of this will help. >> >> From your explanation on the thread of the first patch of this series, >> this will not be required. >> >> So, >> Reviewed-by: Preeti U Murthy > > OK, so is the whole series reviewed now? Yes the whole series has been reviewed. Regards Preeti U Murthy > >