On 2 July 2013 16:19, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Previously, I sent two reply about your reply. But, Please ignore previous reply. > Those have wrong function flow about creating sysfs file and poor wrong opinion. > > I'm so sorry if you're confused. Its okay. > OK. I'll create link for CPU[1-3] if multiple core use one cpufreq policy. > In result, we can check below directory structure. > > sh-4.1# ls -al /sys/kernel/debug/cpufreq/ > total 0 > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 Jan 1 09:00 . > drwx------ 26 root root 0 Jan 1 09:00 .. > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Jan 1 09:00 cpu0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jan 1 09:00 cpu1 -> ./cpu0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jan 1 09:00 cpu2 -> ./cpu0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jan 1 09:00 cpu3 -> ./cpu0 > > And then I will create load_table debugfs file below of /sys/kernel/debug/cpufreq/cpu0 > in cpufreq_stats.c Looks good. > I understand your opinion. But I have a suggestion for using load_table debugfs file > if cpufreq governor is performance/powersave. > > So, I suggest that performance/powersave governor may need to executes dbs_check_cpu() > to calculate CPUx load. Sometimes, we need CPUs load on performance/powersave > govenor because we could get different power-consumption according to CPUs load > on same cpu frequency when we estimate power-consumption on specific test case. How will these two call dbs_check_cpu()? We don't have a timer for those two governors :) Okay do one thing. Create debugfs and debug/cpufreq/cpuX directory always. Let load_table contain zero when we have irrelevant governors set for it. We will see if we want some smart code in place for this or not. -- 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
