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