From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751725AbdHAA6b (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:58:31 -0400 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:58634 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751102AbdHAA6a (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:58:30 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Doug Smythies Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "'Len Brown'" , rafael@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "'Len Brown'" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: x86: Make scaling_cur_freq behave more as expected Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 02:50:22 +0200 Message-ID: <7022398.sQJh69VhN8@aspire.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.12.0-rc1+; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <002201d30a57$44f2ed40$ced8c7c0$@net> References: <1498281114-3868-1-git-send-email-lenb@kernel.org> <8753755.adRLzWASdR@aspire.rjw.lan> <002201d30a57$44f2ed40$ced8c7c0$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday, July 31, 2017 04:46:42 PM Doug Smythies wrote: > On 2017.07.28 05:45 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > After commit f8475cef9008 "x86: use common aperfmperf_khz_on_cpu() to > > calculate KHz using APERF/MPERF" the scaling_cur_freq policy attribute > > in sysfs only behaves as expected on x86 with APERF/MPERF registers > > available when it is read from at least twice in a row. The value > > returned by the first read may not be meaningful, because the > > computations in there use cached values from the previous iteration > > of aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() which may be stale. > > > > To prevent that from happening, modify arch_freq_get_on_cpu() to > > call aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() twice, with a short delay between > > these calls, if the previous invocation of aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() > > was too far back in the past (specifically, more that 1s ago). > > ...[deleted the rest]... > > This patch seems to work fine and addresses my complaints from last week. > Thanks. Thanks for the confirmation! Rafael