[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180522105429.yn2omuz63oa2w3ez@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 16:24:29 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: "Joel Fernandes (Google.)" <joelaf@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] schedutil: Allow cpufreq requests to be made even
when kthread kicked
On 22-05-18, 12:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Ugly indeed.
Hehe. I was thinking, maybe we can write wrapper helpers around lock/unlock
which are stored as pointers in sg_policy. So that those are only set to
non-NULL values (or non-Noop routines) for slow-switching single policy or
any-switching shared policy systems. Then we can get rid of such conditional
locking attempts :)
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists