On 03/30/2016 04:31 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> >> +static int sugov_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> >> +{
>>> >> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = policy->governor_data;
>>> >> +
>>> >> + if (!policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
>>> >> + mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>>> >> +
>>> >> + if (policy->max < policy->cur)
>>> >> + __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->max,
>>> >> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
>>> >> + else if (policy->min > policy->cur)
>>> >> + __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, policy->min,
>>> >> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>>> >> +
>>> >> + mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>>> >> + }
>>> >> +
>>> >> + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
>> >
>> > I am wondering why we need to do this for !fast_switch_enabled case?
>
> That will cause the rate limit to be ignored in the utilization update
> handler which may be necessary if it is set to a relatively large
> value (like 1 s).
But why is that necessary for !fast_switch_enabled? In that case the
frequency has been adjusted to satisfy the new limits here, so ignoring
the rate limit shouldn't be necessary. In other words why not
} else {
sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
}
--
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
