On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:30:08AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 05:23:54PM +0700, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > No, since its a compile time thing, we can simply do: > > > > > > #ifdef arch_scale_freq_capacity > > > next_freq = (1 + 1/n) * max_freq * (util / max) > > > #else > > > next_freq = (1 + 1/n) * current_freq * (util_raw / max) > > > #endif > > > > selecting formula at compilation is clearly better. I wrongly thought that > > it can't be accepted as a solution. > > Well, its bound to get more 'interesting' since I forse implementations > not always actually doing the invariant thing. > > Take for example the thing I send: > > lkml.kernel.org/r/20160303162829.GB6375@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > it both shows why you cannot talk about current_freq but also that the > above needs a little more help (for the !X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF case). > > But the !arch_scale_freq_capacity case should indeed be that simple. Maybe something like: #ifdef arch_scale_freq_capacity #ifndef arch_scale_freq_invariant #define arch_scale_freq_invariant() (true) #endif #else /* arch_scale_freq_capacity */ #define arch_scale_freq_invariant() (false) #endif if (arch_scale_freq_invariant()) And have archs that have conditional arch_scale_freq_capacity() implementation provide a arch_scale_freq_invariant implementation. -- 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
