[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aJxlF882pPDy5uf9@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 12:12:39 +0200
From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
To: Prashant Malani <pmalani@...gle.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"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 Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 06:43:08PM +0000, Prashant Malani wrote:
> On Aug 11 11:35, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 06-08-25, 17:19, Prashant Malani wrote:
> > > So, do we have consensus that the idle check is acceptable as proposed?
> > > (Just want to make sure this thread doesn't get lost given another thread
> > > has forked off in this conversation).
> >
> > I don't have any objections to this or a better solution to this.
>
> Thanks Viresh! Beata, can we kindly move ahead with the idle
> optimization (which is this series), while we continue discussions for
> the "under load" scenarios on the other thread?
>
> BR,
I'd say yes, as long as you get a green light on exporting `idle_cpu`.
---
BR
Beata
Powered by blists - more mailing lists