On 19 June 2013 06:50, Xiaoguang Chen <chenxg.marvell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2013/6/19 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: >> On Thursday, June 13, 2013 05:01:58 PM Xiaoguang Chen wrote: >>> cpufreq governor stop and start should be kept in sequence. >>> If not, there will be unexpected behavior, for example: >>> >>> we have 4 cpus and policy->cpu=cpu0, cpu1/2/3 are linked to cpu0. >> >> Please spell cpus as "CPUs". And please start sequences from capitals. > > Ok, thanks for the remind > >> >> [Yes, it *really* is a problem.] Just wanted to know the reasoning behind it so that I can remind others about it and then argue :) >>> the normal sequence is as below: >>> >>> 1) Current governor is userspace, one application tries to set >>> governor to ondemand. it will call __cpufreq_set_policy in which it >>> will stop userspace governor and then start ondemand governor. >> >> Do I think correctly that this is for all CPUs? > > From current code design, it is for all CPUs. Why? This can be for a single cpu (which would eventually force all others CPUs sharing policy with it). -- 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
