[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161114040622.GA29087@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:36:22 +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 13-11-16, 15:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> That's only going to happen in the next patch, though, right? It
> wouldn't hurt to write that in the changelog too.
Sure.
> Besides, I'm not actually sure if starting/stopping the kthread in
> sugov_policy_alloc/free() is a good idea. It sort of conflates the
> allocation of memory with kthread creation. Any chance to untangle
> that?
Hmm, so either I can create two new routines for the thread and call
them along with alloc/free. Or I can rename the alloc/free routines
and keep this patch as is.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists