On 07/09/2013 03:50 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 5 July 2013 14:16, Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Second, previous performance/powersave governor haven't calculated CPUs load >> becuase these governor didn't change CPU frequency according to CPUs load. But, >> load_table debugfs file always should indicate the collected CPUs data regardless >> of the kind of cpufreq governor. So, the patch3/4/5 implement that performance/ >> powersave governor will check periodically CPUs load by calling dbs_check_cpu() >> with timer. > > I raised a query on how can we call dbs_check_cpu() from > performance/powersave? Also, calling this routine will degrade > performance without any sense. So, I vote not for doing it. You're right. The performance/powersave don't usually need calling operation of dbs_check_cpu(). Only, this patch aims at checking CPUs load on load_table debugfs file. I'm going to consider more efficient way than this patchset. For example, But, following patctes haven't the dependency about upper description about performance/powersave. If user changes cpufreq governor from ondemand/conservative to performance/powersave, patch2 did reset all of the data for load_table. cpufreq: Add debugfs directory for cpufreq cpufreq: stats: Add 'load_table' debugfs file to show accumulated data of CPUs Documentation: cpufreq: load_table: Update load_table debugfs file documentation So, I'd like you to review patch1,patch2, patch6. If you with that I resend patch1/2/6, I will resend new patchset incluing in patch1/2/6. Thanks, 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
