[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gpF_8qCW8Qtxr+MCpJwz9r+OHhMRvaG3QOYxYBFhw3Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:13:21 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Always trace frequency if it does not change
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:52:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>> > So why not fix the tools?
>>
>> Because I can't.
>>
>> I just can't go and fix all of the tools binaries that people use out
>> there and I want them to use recent kernels at the same time.
>>
>
> Thing is; you're now letting random tracepoint user dictate kernel
> implementation. That's a bad state to be in.
Fair enough.
Admittedly, I was sort of divided on whether or not to drop the
trace_cpu_frequency() call entirely and now I see another reason to do
that. There is a change queued up for 4.12 that will cause the
tracepoint to be triggered more often totally in vain which I don't
think is a good thing at all. So I'll send a v2 dropping that call
and we'll see if anyone complains.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists