On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> +{
> + unsigned int freq = arch_scale_freq_invariant() ?
> + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq : policy->cur;
> +
> + return (freq + (freq >> 2)) * util / max;
> +}
> +
> +static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> + unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> +{
> + struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct sugov_cpu, update_util);
> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> + unsigned int next_f;
> +
> + if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> + return;
> +
> + next_f = util <= max ?
> + get_next_freq(policy, util, max) : policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
I'm not sure that is correct, would not something like this be more
accurate?
if (util > max)
util = max;
next_f = get_next_freq(policy, util, max);
After all, if we clip util we will still only increment to the next freq
with our multiplication factor.
Hmm, or was this meant to deal with the DL/RT stuff?
Would then not something like:
/* ULONG_MAX is used to force max_freq for Real-Time policies */
if (util == ULONG_MAX) {
next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
} else {
if (util > max)
util = max;
next_f = get_next_freq(policy, util, max);
}
Be clearer?
> + sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> +}
--
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
