[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240205073814.s656yzrv56tecji3@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:08:14 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lizhe <sensor1010@....com>
Cc: vincent.guittot@...aro.org, ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com,
rafael@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq/schedutil: When updating limitations, frequency
modulation interval not become invalid.
On 04-02-24, 06:09, Lizhe wrote:
> If the current frequency scaling policy is schedutil.
> echo schedutil > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
> This would result in an invalid frequency modulation interval.
> In sugov_limit(), sg_policy->limits_changed is set to true.
That will only make us do an extra freq change. What's the problem with that ?
> Signed-off-by: Lizhe <sensor1010@....com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 44db4f59c4cc..a0af38fcb7e2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2631,7 +2631,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>
> if (new_gov == policy->governor) {
> pr_debug("governor limits update\n");
> - cpufreq_governor_limits(policy);
> + cpufreq_policy_apply_limits(policy);
> return 0;
> }
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists