Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751708AbbEGUeu (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 16:34:50 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:61890 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750876AbbEGUer (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 May 2015 16:34:47 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Preeti U Murthy Cc: Shilpasri G Bhat , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] cpufreq: powernv: Call throttle_check() on receiving OCC_THROTTLE Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 22:59:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4161534.4Jyd5dl4um@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.0.0+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <554B584A.3030507@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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2325 Lines: 52 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? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/