From 45a428ebbf7d6a4ec77cf02fc706ecd62b261bd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aaro Koskinen Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:44:31 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: pmac64: speed up frequency switch 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 Acked-by: Viresh Kumar Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- 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 b977b9aa408e..889c0d553572 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/pmac64-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/pmac64-cpufreq.c @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ 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"); @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ 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 */ } /* @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ 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");