From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19DC342885A; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790797281; cv=none; b=G5P7ycyzGTTsJvk6hH7uyP1nst5BE+/Fji/8DyN9zHkcVFCqXYBltdRPABAnuV+yuSRrdMqTNPfT6sZxeE6mCJySrbAL82eZ0WXkycpNsR+PbEUVk/D5pX5moHfCZk48fNT8yvVIQFsGuDgGUqPZJP31oLT8yb3G1WDAiTjO7iE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790797281; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XRBtD6UQ/g2XUJCDvgHluYVpYjV/2DqntngjUXFIch8=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=B8NbVH5mVZHPiSsRMV/7hGkidXGApmDs6B1SIrLtNN7+XcX1B2GppKsfhWdHjPbECtGm/zN78lJUWQ9hXEGjYvI35cyyXV7mziYAfzcRN2zkAjM36SGnF+6gQuKyOuk90gM7xgm7NmUEmoGrE1y2U+vrvNU/tevTG6IeudfPzvs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=cjUJPRb1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="cjUJPRb1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 291351F000FF; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:41:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790797279; bh=wLglIRyfM6RiGXgcdG2eKC+9iI7ADOBxpEUpwTEGn3s=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=cjUJPRb10ymTF7VYO5xr+OXS4gLHj8p4iK4/Ln/19APDaNolCBS5/++gWsEw+K94C 8n1tNLDGXK7fDYiQu4S3yA92uKJ5nE1pt/CNJ0/gYo4+rhSDaumTQ0N/CfM5M/h47e X02lszvCnMAn61la0p61vFdTwVPIWFaUD15zl6gmEHRQgvyGPlQ4z61fTKeW4LyRzz la2zpU2QfndKTyIUFegAOZKkk3Ny8iiDa5hOXyVXOO3Lp+PVadQi+xw2LvLGQwCn5u 0fWQHgQlm0UHk7iWm9538S/rnwYsMgoI+LHpJI6uvYIlZiAjAr+VHw2odtEEg3i6Fr UCjPOdgC/rzQg== Message-ID: <01667c52-284d-47ba-aa9b-2b0ff685610a@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:41:17 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ACPI: CPPC: Refactor boost ratio handling Content-Language: en-US To: "Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)" Cc: Christian Loehle , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, K Prateek Nayak , x86@kernel.org, Mario Limonciello References: <20260924160052.2858456-1-superm1@kernel.org> <20260924160052.2858456-2-superm1@kernel.org> <213bc2ba-2ee4-4a89-9054-3bd953546789@arm.com> From: Mario Limonciello In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/30/26 14:37, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 4:54 PM Mario Limonciello wrote: >> >> On 9/25/26 04:40, Christian Loehle wrote: >>> On 9/24/26 17:00, Mario Limonciello (AMD) wrote: >>>> From: Mario Limonciello >>>> >>>> Rename amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator() to amd_get_effective_highest_perf() >>>> to better reflect that it returns the effective highest performance value >>>> for a CPU, accounting for preferred cores and heterogeneous topologies. >>>> >>>> Add a new helper amd_get_boost_ratio() for doing both for boost >>>> ratio calculations and update callers to use it. >>>> >>>> This refactoring is needed because on some AMD systems (Zen6+), >>>> the boost ratio should be calculated from frequency values rather than >>>> performance values. >>> >>> I think I see why you chose to implement it this way (the x86 APERF / MPERF) >>> issue, but I'd still prefer it to be spelled out here why this is necessary. >>> >> >> Do you mean in the commit message, like spin the patch? Or just in this >> thread? >> >> Not all cores will operate at the same frequency and fixed scaling >> values from CPPC perf don't apply anymore. > > Well, CPPC is per-CPU at least in principle, so the above doesn't > explain much TBH. > > It kind of follows from the cover letter that there's something > missing in CPPC, so this is a stop-gap thing, but it would be good to > put the information from the cover letter to the changelog of this > patch. OK; I'll respin the series with the detail in this commit message. And yeah; this is totally stop gap to allow other development that needs this. Once next ACPI spec is out I'll tear out the stop gap and put in the right support.