[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160317113622.GS6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:36:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
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 v5 7/7][Update] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on
scheduler utilization data
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:01:45AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> + } else if (sg_policy->next_freq != next_freq) {
> + sg_policy->work_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
> + }
> +}
> +static void sugov_irq_work(struct irq_work *irq_work)
> +{
> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
> +
> + sg_policy = container_of(irq_work, struct sugov_policy, irq_work);
> + schedule_work_on(sg_policy->work_cpu, &sg_policy->work);
> +}
Not sure I see the point of ->work_cpu, irq_work_queue() does guarantee
the same CPU, so the above is identical to:
schedule_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &sq_policy->work);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists