[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1619379.bIbaK6P2Xv@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:48:51 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 06:53:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > + unsigned int next_freq)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > +
> > + if (next_freq > policy->max)
> > + next_freq = policy->max;
> > + else if (next_freq < policy->min)
> > + next_freq = policy->min;
>
> I'm still very much undecided on these policy min/max thresholds. I
> don't particularly like them.
These are for consistency mostly.
It actually occurs to me that __cpufreq_driver_target() does that already
anyway, so they can be moved into the "fast switch" branch. Which means
that the code needs to be rearranged a bit here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists