[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpon8zDP3hVFMQV4CO2zOkb-AwnDws8xW=H8Hm4=gW=8FGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 11:14:01 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@....edu>
Cc: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@...gle.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: Don't destroy/realloc policy/sysfs on hotplug/suspend
On 15 July 2014 12:28, Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa@....edu> wrote:
> Wait, allowing an offline CPU to be the policy->cpu (i.e., the CPU which is
> considered as the master of the policy/group) is just absurd.
Yeah, that was as Absurd as I am :)
> The goal of this patchset should be to just de-couple the sysfs files/ownership
> from the policy->cpu to an extent where it doesn't matter who owns those
> files, and probably make it easier to do CPU hotplug without having to
> destroy and recreate the files on every hotplug operation.
I went to that Absurd idea because we thought we can skip playing with
the sysfs nodes on suspend/hotplug.
And if policy->cpu keeps changing with hotplug, we *may* have to keep
sysfs stuff moving as well. One way to avoid that is by using something
like: policy->sysfs_cpu, but wasn't sure if that's the right path to follow.
Lets see what Saravana's new patchset has for us :)
--
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