[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2340396.PKx5xUKfbU@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:10:45 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Update PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Make governor data on nonboot cpus across system suspend/resume
On Saturday, November 16, 2013 08:27:07 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16 November 2013 20:11, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 16, 2013 11:59:59 AM Lan Tianyu wrote:
>
> >> Defaultly, all cpus use ondemand governor after bootup. Change one
> >> non-boot cpu's governor to conservative,
> >
> > Well, why would anyone want to do that? Just out of curiosity ...
>
> People may want to use different group/cluster/socket of CPUs differently,
> with different kind of policies. Maybe performance governor for boot cpu
> and ondemand for others.
>
> This bug would also be there for big LITTLE where we want to have
> separate set of tunables for big and LITTLE clusters for the same type
> of governor.
>
> > So this is acpi-cpufreq, right?
>
> Probably yes, I saw something similar somewhere.. But this is driver
> independent..
>
> > The patch looks basically OK to me, but ->
>
> We wouldn't need this patch if my other patch (where I am disabling
> governors in suspend/resume goes in, in any form)..
Yes, I know that, but I don't think this is the right approach.
Thanks!
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists