[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohponvq3vuzNvaGE7_Pn8vM54AMPZu_E8yRyeytegh-bjuzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:49:41 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: schedutil: enable fast switch earlier
On 12 November 2016 at 03:28, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> @@ -478,8 +484,6 @@ static void sugov_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> struct sugov_tunables *tunables = sg_policy->tunables;
>> unsigned int count;
>>
>> - cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(policy);
>> -
>
> ->but why is this change necessary?
>
> sugov_stop() has been called already, so the ordering here shouldn't matter.
Because sugov_policy_free() would be using the flag fast_switch_enabled.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists