Some functions on switch path use msleep() which is inaccurate, and depends on HZ. With HZ=100 msleep(1) takes actually over ten times longer. Using usleep_range() we get more accurate sleeps.
I measured the "pfunc_slewing_done" polling to take 300us at max (on 2.3GHz dual-processor Xserve G5), so using 500us sleep there should be fine. With the patch, g5_switch_freq() duration drops from ~50ms to ~10ms on Xserve with HZ=100. Signed-off-by: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koski...@iki.fi> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/pmac64-cpufreq.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/pmac64-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/pmac64-cpufreq.c index 3a51ad7..46ae223 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/pmac64-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/pmac64-cpufreq.c @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static void g5_vdnap_switch_volt(int speed_mode) pmf_call_one(pfunc_vdnap0_complete, &args); if (done) break; - msleep(1); + usleep_range(1000, 1000); } if (done == 0) printk(KERN_WARNING "cpufreq: Timeout in clock slewing !\n"); @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static void g5_pfunc_switch_volt(int speed_mode) if (pfunc_cpu1_volt_low) pmf_call_one(pfunc_cpu1_volt_low, NULL); } - msleep(10); /* should be faster , to fix */ + usleep_range(10000, 10000); /* should be faster , to fix */ } /* @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ static int g5_pfunc_switch_freq(int speed_mode) pmf_call_one(pfunc_slewing_done, &args); if (done) break; - msleep(1); + usleep_range(500, 500); } if (done == 0) printk(KERN_WARNING "cpufreq: Timeout in clock slewing !\n"); -- 1.8.4.rc3 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev