On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2016-10-19 at 02:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> >> > > [...] > >> + if (policy->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE) { >> + /* >> + * NOHZ_FULL CPUs need this as the governor callback >> may not >> + * be invoked on them. >> + */ >> + intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(policy->cpu); >> + intel_pstate_max_within_limits(cpu); >> + } >> + > > Can we move this to intel_pstate_set_performance_limits > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > index a6ffd79..d0fd73e 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > @@ -1543,6 +1543,13 @@ static void > intel_pstate_set_performance_limits(struct perf_limits *limits) > limits->max_sysfs_pct = 100; > limits->min_policy_pct = 0; > limits->min_sysfs_pct = 0; > + > + /* > + * NOHZ_FULL CPUs need this as the governor callback may not > + * be invoked on them. > + */ > + intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(policy->cpu); > + intel_pstate_max_within_limits(cpu); > } > > static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > @@ -1599,15 +1606,6 @@ static int intel_pstate_set_policy(struct > cpufreq_policy *policy) > limits->max_perf = round_up(limits->max_perf, FRAC_BITS); > > out: > - if (policy->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE) { > - /* > - * NOHZ_FULL CPUs need this as the governor callback > may not > - * be invoked on them. > - */ > - intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook(policy->cpu); > - intel_pstate_max_within_limits(cpu); > - } > - > intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook(policy->cpu); > > intel_pstate_hwp_set_policy(policy);
Not really, because the policy->max < policy->cpuinfo.max_freq case needs to be covered too. At least I don't see why it shouldn't be covered. Thanks, Rafael
