On 03/30/2016 10:24 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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;
>> }
>
> My thinking here was that the governor might decide to use something
> different from the limit enforced here, so it would be good to make it
> do so as soon as possible. In particular in the
> non-frequency-invariant utilization case in which new frequency
> depends on the current one.
>
> That said i'm not particularly opposed to making that change if that's
> preferred.
Ah ok fair enough. No strong opinion from me...
thanks,
Steve
--
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
