[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 6/9] x86/intel_pstate: the main boby of the intel_pstate driver
>>> On 10.06.15 at 07:20, <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote >> >>> On 13.05.16 at 09:50, <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > + if (policy->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE) { >> > + limits.no_turbo = 0; >> > + limits.max_perf_pct = 100; >> > + limits.max_perf = int_tofp(1); >> > + limits.min_perf_pct = 100; >> > + limits.min_perf = int_tofp(1); >> > + policy->max_perf_pct = 100; >> > + policy->min_perf_pct = 100; >> > + return 0; > > I noticed another issue. The intel_pstate driver originally manages all the > CPUs using the global "limit" structure (e.g. if one CPU is set to be in the > Performance mode, min_perf=max_perf , then all the CPUs will run in the > Performance mode). This will generate confusing status info to users in our > case. For example, if we set CPU0 in Powersave, then set CPU1 in Performance. > We will see CPU0 in the Powersave mode, but it's actually running in the > Performance mode. > > How do you think if we move the global "limit" structure to the per-cpu > policy structure, so that each CPU can be configured individually? Sounds reasonable; I don't recall having asked for that structure to be global... Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |