On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:25:16AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > Commit fe7034338ba0 (cpufreq: Add mechanism for registering > utilization update callbacks) added cpufreq_update_util() to be > called by the scheduler (from the CFS part) on utilization updates. > The goal was to allow CFS to pass utilization information to cpufreq > and to trigger it to evaluate the frequency/voltage configuration > (P-state) of every CPU on a regular basis. > > However, the last two arguments of that function are never used by > the current code, so CFS might simply call cpufreq_trigger_update() > instead of it (like the RT and DL sched classes). > > For this reason, drop the last two arguments of cpufreq_update_util(), > rename it to cpufreq_trigger_update() and modify CFS to call it. > > Moreover, since the utilization is not involved in that now, rename > data types, functions and variables related to cpufreq_trigger_update() > to reflect that (eg. struct update_util_data becomes struct > freq_update_hook and so on). > -void cpufreq_update_util(u64 time, unsigned long util, unsigned long max) > +void cpufreq_trigger_update(u64 time) So I'm not convinced about this. Yes the utility of this function is twofold. One to allow in-situ frequency adjustments where possible, but two, also very much to allow using the statistics already gathered. Sure, 4.5 will not have any such users, but who cares. And I'm really not too worried about 'random' people suddenly using it to base work on. Either people are already participating in these discussions and will thus be aware of whatever concerns there might be, or we'll tell them when they post their code. And when they don't participate and don't post their code, I really don't care about them anyway :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
