[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eccb89bf-80cc-e96a-925e-181095305631@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:12:56 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: Align trace event behavior of fast
switching
On 26/08/2019 13:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:51:17AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>
>> Not sure about the extra 'if trace_cpu_frequency_enabled()' but I guess
>> it doesn't hurt.
>
> Without that you do that for_each_cpu() iteration unconditionally, even
> if the tracepoint is disabled.
Makes sense, I'm wondering if we want this in
cpufreq_notify_transition() CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE for the
non-fast-switching drivers as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists