On 06/11/2013 02:06 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10 June 2013 17:43, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 06/07/2013 07:23 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >>> On 5 June 2013 13:41, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 1301500082290 800000 61 11 1 43 >> >> ... >> >> When 1301500082290 ns: >> cpu0's busy_cpu_threshold : 32 = 64 * (800000/1600000) > s/64/61 :) Sorry, my mistake. > >>> How are you getting loads different for all your cpus? I believe you >>> are just recording these values for policy->cpu and all cpus share >>> same policy on your platform. >>> >> I got the Per-CPU load by using cpufreq_notify_transition(). >> when cpufreq governor call dbs_check_cpu(). > I forgot to remove this line in my earlier reply. I understood this towards > the end of patch. OK. > >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT_DETAILS >>>> + struct cpufreq_freqs freqs; >>>> +#endif >>> Why do you need this to be global? >> I'll remove global variable and move 'freqs' in some structure. > ?? > > You can just make it a local variable in the only function it is used. You are right. I'll fix it by using local variable. > > TIP: Always place a blank line before and after your reply to kernel > mails, this makes it much more readable. I will modify this patch according to your comment and then resend it after merged below patch. - [PATCH] cpufreq: stats: Remove CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT_DETAILS Thanks your comment and tip. Best Regards, Chanwoo Choi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
