lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ARM: Don't ever downscale loops_per_jiffy in SMP systems#
On Tue, 13 May 2014, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> On Tue, 13 May 2014, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> > On 05/13/2014 03:50 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > ...
> > > ...but then I found the true problem shows up when we transition
> > > between very low frequencies on exynos, like between 200MHz and
> > > 300MHz. While transitioning between frequencies the system
> > > temporarily bumps over to the "switcher" PLL running at 800MHz while
> > > waiting for the main PLL to stabilize. No CPUFREQ notification is
> > > sent for that. That means there's a period of time when we're running
> > > at 800MHz but loops_per_jiffy is calibrated at between 200MHz and
> > > 300MHz.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm welcome to any suggestions for how to address this. It sorta
> > > feels like it would be a common thing to have a temporary PLL during
> > > the transition, ...
> >
> > We definitely do that on Tegra for some cpufreq transitions.
>
> Ouch... If this is a common strategy to use a third frequency during a
> transition phase, especially if that frequency is way off (800MHz vs
> 200-300MHz) then it is something the cpufreq layer must capture and
> advertise.

Of course if only the loops_per_jiffy scaling does care about frequency
changes these days, and if in those cases udelay() can instead be moved
to a timer source on those hick-up prone platforms, then all this is
fairly theoretical and may not be worth pursuing.


Nicolas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-14 02:01    [W:0.080 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site