Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221221155203.11347-1-ptyadav@amazon.de> <72bcd14eef038ec9181d30b3d196b0a872f47ccb.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <mafs0k02jd8oh.fsf_-_@dev-dsk-ptyadav-1c-37607b33.eu-west-1.amazon.com>
 <2ed9702b67832e3e33ef352808124980206c1e95.camel@linux.intel.com>
 <8e2cc66f7dadcfb04099aac7c4eef0b02075c91b.camel@linux.intel.com> <mafs07cycdfh4.fsf_-_@amazon.de>
In-Reply-To: <mafs07cycdfh4.fsf_-_@amazon.de>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Dec 2022 16:57:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gaMeFmCCJMqg_3n_FkZ4L2J-y8CwgrNxBJiKJd_2e1Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] intel_pstate: fix turbo not being used after a
 processor is rebooted
To:     Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@amazon.de>
Cc:     srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Robert Moore <robert.moore@intel.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devel@acpica.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 4:38 PM Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@amazon.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Srinivas,
>
> On Sat, Dec 24 2022, srinivas pandruvada wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2022-12-23 at 10:10 -0800, srinivas pandruvada wrote:
> >> Hi Pratyush,
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 11:39 +0100, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Srinivas,
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Dec 21 2022, srinivas pandruvada wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, 2022-12-21 at 16:52 +0100, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
> >> > > > When a processor is brought offline and online again, it is
> >> > > > unable to
> >> > > > use Turbo mode because the _PSS table does not contain the whole
> >> > > > turbo
> >> > > > frequency range, but only +1 MHz above the max non-turbo
> >> > > > frequency.
> >> > > > This
> >> > > > causes problems when ACPI processor driver tries to set frequency
> >> > > > constraints. See patch 2 for more details.
> >> > > >
> >> I can reproduce on a Broadwell server platform. But not on a client
> >> system with acpi_ppc usage.
> >>
> >> Need to check what change broke this.
> >
> > When PPC limits enforcement changed to PM QOS, this broke. Previously
> > acpi_processor_get_platform_limit() was not enforcing any limits. It
> > was just setting variable. So any update done after
> > acpi_register_performance_state() call to pr->performance-
> >>states[ppc].core_frequency, was effective.
> >
> > We don't really need to call
> >         ret = freq_qos_update_request(&pr->perflib_req,
> >                         pr->performance->states[ppc].core_frequency *
> > 1000);
> >
> > if the PPC is not changed. When PPC is changed, this gets called again,
> > so then we can call the above function to update cpufreq limit.
> >
> > The below change fixed for me.
>
> Right. Should I re-roll my patches with your diff below then? Or do you
> think my patches should be good to merge as-is?

No, they are not good to merge.