[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210310192051.00006659.zbestahu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 19:20:51 +0800
From: Yue Hu <zbestahu@...il.com>
To: rafael@...nel.org
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
huyue2@...ong.com, zbestahu@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: Call sugov_update_next_freq()
before check to fast_switch_enabled
Hi Rafael,
Please also review the patch.
I'm not sure if you have reviewed or not.
Thank you!
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:17:27 +0530
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 24-02-21, 14:39, Yue Hu wrote:
> > From: Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
> >
> > Note that sugov_update_next_freq() may return false, that means the
> > caller sugov_fast_switch() will do nothing except fast switch check.
> >
> > Similarly, sugov_deferred_update() also has unnecessary operations
> > of raw_spin_{lock,unlock} in sugov_update_single_freq() for that case.
> >
> > So, let's call sugov_update_next_freq() before the fast switch check
> > to avoid unnecessary behaviors above. Accordingly, update interface
> > definition to sugov_deferred_update() and remove sugov_fast_switch()
> > since we will call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huyue2@...ong.com>
> > ---
> > v2: remove sugov_fast_switch() and call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch()
> > directly instead, also update minor log message.
> >
> > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 ++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists