[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jirE0uq_=OidG9RzjPdHqffeXL-=45WOD8jej=_ZhHgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:22:58 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering
utilization update callbacks
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:47:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>>
>> Introduce a mechanism by which parts of the cpufreq subsystem
>> ("setpolicy" drivers or the core) can register callbacks to be
>> executed from cpufreq_update_util() which is invoked by the
>> scheduler's update_load_avg() on CPU utilization changes.
>>
>> This allows the "setpolicy" drivers to dispense with their timers
>> and do all of the computations they need and frequency/voltage
>> adjustments in the update_load_avg() code path, among other things.
>>
>> The update_load_avg() changes were suggested by Peter Zijlstra.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 4 ++++
>> kernel/sched/fair.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> kernel/sched/rt.c | 4 ++++
>> kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 +
>> 6 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>
> So with the understanding that we'll work on getting rid of
> cpufreq_trigger_update().
That definitely is the plan.
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Thanks! :-)
> Also, Vincent had some concerns about the exact placement of the
> callback, and I see no problem in moving it if there's need.
Yup, same here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists