[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gqqoOzjUMhUgqKzaj8tCegddJphr+MHj5HD2_VAc1QYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 22:40:23 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@....com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: Align trace event behavior of fast switching
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:34 PM Douglas RAILLARD
<douglas.raillard@....com> wrote:
>
> Fast switching path only emits an event for the CPU of interest, whereas the
> regular path emits an event for all the CPUs that had their frequency changed,
> i.e. all the CPUs sharing the same policy.
>
> With the current behavior, looking at cpu_frequency event for a given CPU that
> is using the fast switching path will not give the correct frequency signal.
Do you actually have any systems where that is a problem? If so, then
what are they?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists