[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250801044340.6ycskhhkzenkzt7a@vireshk-i7>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 10:13:40 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
Cc: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@...ilicon.com>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:CPU FREQUENCY SCALING FRAMEWORK" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
z00813676 <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: CPPC: Dont read counters for idle CPUs
On 31-07-25, 22:23, Beata Michalska wrote:
> The reason why I mentioned that is that getting current frequency
> for an idle CPU seems like smth we could potentially optimise away and save some
> cycles (fixing other problems on the way, like this one).
I agree with that idea, just that the cpufreq core may not be the right place
for that. Doing that in the driver should be fine.
> But if that's undesired for any reason, it's perfectly fine to stay with
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists