public inbox for linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop redundant intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap() call
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:12:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5782812.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher> (raw)

From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

It is not necessary to call intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap() from
intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(), because it gets called from
intel_pstate_verify_cpu_policy() which is either invoked directly
right before intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(), in
intel_cpufreq_verify_policy() in the passive mode, or called
from driver callbacks in a sequence that causes it to be followed
by an immediate intel_pstate_update_perf_limits().

Namely, in the active mode intel_cpufreq_verify_policy() is called
by intel_pstate_verify_policy() which is the ->verify() callback
routine of intel_pstate and gets called by the cpufreq core right
before intel_pstate_set_policy(), which is the driver's ->setoplicy()
callback routine, where intel_pstate_update_perf_limits() is called.

Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c |   18 +++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -2486,18 +2486,14 @@ static void intel_pstate_update_perf_lim
 	 * HWP needs some special consideration, because HWP_REQUEST uses
 	 * abstract values to represent performance rather than pure ratios.
 	 */
-	if (hwp_active) {
-		intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap(cpu);
+	if (hwp_active && cpu->pstate.scaling != perf_ctl_scaling) {
+		int scaling = cpu->pstate.scaling;
+		int freq;
 
-		if (cpu->pstate.scaling != perf_ctl_scaling) {
-			int scaling = cpu->pstate.scaling;
-			int freq;
-
-			freq = max_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
-			max_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
-			freq = min_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
-			min_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
-		}
+		freq = max_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
+		max_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
+		freq = min_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
+		min_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
 	}
 
 	pr_debug("cpu:%d min_policy_perf:%d max_policy_perf:%d\n",




                 reply	other threads:[~2021-12-10 16:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

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=5782812.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher \
    --to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
    /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