On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Turquette, Mike <mturquette@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:27 AM, MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Better to deal natively in jiffies instead of doing conversions of > conversions. Make last_polled_at an unsigned long and then > jiffies_passed just becomes jiffies - last_polled_at. Oh,, good point. We don't need that ktime here. I'll submit a partial resubmit for this as well in minutes. > > I still think that the timekeeping here is gross. last_polled_at > should not be static. Instead governors should track the timekeeping > info themselves (for now could live in struct devfreq_governor). I > won't NACK the patch b/c of that, but I think that the code will have > to become more modularized in the future if devfreq sees wide > adoption. > Fine. For the case the possibility of a DEVFREQ device that must not share the polling loop (devices inside a core of multi-core CPUs other than the core itself?), I'd think about allowing governors to have its own loop optionally for later versions in the future when the needs appear to be approaching. Before that point, it just looks like an additional overhead. > > Similar to the above, it's better to deal natively in jiffies instead > of doing a conversion every time. When a polling interval is > specified at init-time, or via sysfs it should be in milliseconds, but > the storage should be jiffies to avoid conversions every single loop > through this code path. The soon-to-be-following partial resubmitting patch will address this as well. > > Regards, > Mike > Thank you! Cheers, MyungJoo -- MyungJoo Ham (함명주), Ph.D. Mobile Software Platform Lab, Digital Media and Communications (DMC) Business Samsung Electronics cell: 82-10-6714-2858 _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
