Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1760258AbcCDV1v (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:27:51 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f194.google.com ([209.85.217.194]:33916 "EHLO
	mail-lb0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757489AbcCDV1t (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:27:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56D9FC66.9050201@linaro.org>
References: <2495375.dFbdlAZmA6@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<2409306.qzzMXcm4dm@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<3276406.TfbasUEj6b@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<2165535.KMoOuEkF5Y@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<56D9FC66.9050201@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:27:46 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: -zp1zfDJoQ6AI6h1wC7kaRhGaPY
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j1yCnW0M3XmFH4EHjJONwY3WASgvXZRFnbcggDcdUD7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 9/10] cpufreq: sched: Re-introduce cpufreq_update_util()
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1092
Lines: 34

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 03/04/2016 05:30 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> +void cpufreq_update_util(u64 time, unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
>> +{
>> +     struct freq_update_hook *hook;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
>> +     WARN_ON(debug_locks && !rcu_read_lock_sched_held());
>> +#endif
>> +
>> +     hook = rcu_dereference_sched(*this_cpu_ptr(&cpufreq_freq_update_hook));
>> +     /*
>> +      * If this isn't inside of an RCU-sched read-side critical section, hook
>> +      * may become NULL after the check below.
>> +      */
>> +     if (hook) {
>> +             if (hook->update_util)
>> +                     hook->update_util(hook, time, util, max);
>> +             else
>> +                     hook->func(hook, time);
>> +     }
>
> Is it worth having two hook types?

Well, that's why I said "maybe over the top" in the changelog comments. :-)

If we want to isolate the "old" governors from util/max entirely, then yes.

If we don't care that much, then no.

I'm open to both possibilities.

Thanks,
Rafael