On 10.06.15 at 07:20, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+if (policy-policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE) {
+limits.no_turbo = 0;
+limits.max_perf_pct = 100;
+limits.max_perf
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com 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;
On 08.06.15 at 03:47, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static int byt_get_min_pstate(void)
+{
+u64 value;
+
+rdmsrl(BYT_RATIOS, value);
+return (value 8) 0x7F;
+}
+
+static int
On 08/06/2015 14:50, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.06.15 at 03:47, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static int byt_get_min_pstate(void) {
+u64 value;
+
+rdmsrl(BYT_RATIOS, value);
+
On 08.06.15 at 10:18, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
Regarding the self-documenting related comment here, which of the following
do you think is better?
1)
#define BYT_MIN_PSTATE_SHIFT8
#define BYT_MAX_PSTATE_SHIFT 16
#define BYT_PSTATE_MASK 0x7f
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static int byt_get_min_pstate(void)
+{
+u64 value;
+
+rdmsrl(BYT_RATIOS, value);
+return (value 8) 0x7F;
+}
+
+static int byt_get_max_pstate(void)
+{
+u64 value;
+
On 02.06.15 at 05:23, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+id = x86_match_cpu(intel_pstate_cpu_ids);
+if (!id)
+return -ENODEV;
+
+cpu_info = (struct cpu_defaults *)id-driver_data;
On 01.06.15 at 11:12, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 29/05/2015 16:46, Jan Beulich wrote
On 29.05.15 at 10:19, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static int intel_pstate_verify_policy(struct
On 29/05/2015 16:46, Jan Beulich wrote
On 29.05.15 at 10:19, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static int intel_pstate_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy
+*policy) {
+
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+id = x86_match_cpu(intel_pstate_cpu_ids);
+if (!id)
+return -ENODEV;
+
+cpu_info = (struct cpu_defaults *)id-driver_data;
+
+copy_pid_params(cpu_info-pid_policy);
+
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static inline int ceiling_fp(int32_t x) {
+int mask, ret;
Please here and below, consider whether types really need to be signed.
One exception: If you intend to import the Linux source file
On 29.05.15 at 10:19, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:58, Jan Beulich wrote
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static int intel_pstate_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
+{
+cpufreq_verify_within_limits(policy, policy-cpuinfo.min_freq,
+
On 13.05.16 at 09:50, wei.w.w...@intel.com wrote:
+static inline int ceiling_fp(int32_t x)
+{
+int mask, ret;
Please here and below, consider whether types really need to be
signed. One exception: If you intend to import the Linux source file
with minimal modifications, and if that indeed
The intel_pstate driver is ported following its kernel code logic
(commit: 93f0822d).
In the kernel, a user can adjust the limits via sysfs
(limits.min_sysfs_pct/max_sysfs_pct). In Xen, the
policy-min_perf_pct/max_perf_pct acts as the transit station.
A user interacts with it via xenpm.
14 matches
Mail list logo
