Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966060AbcCPWvs (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:51:48 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:53766 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933308AbcCPWvp (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:51:45 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linux PM list , Juri Lelli , Steve Muckle , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Srinivas Pandruvada , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Michael Turquette , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:53:47 +0100 Message-ID: <3401840.ChzILGGFZI@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.5.0-rc1+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160316224054.GL6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1711281.bPmSjlBT7c@vostro.rjw.lan> <3456066.ocPAtCXNWC@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160316224054.GL6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1485 Lines: 39 On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:40:54 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 07:14:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > > > > + unsigned int next_freq) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy; > > > > + > > > > + if (next_freq > policy->max) > > > > + next_freq = policy->max; > > > > + else if (next_freq < policy->min) > > > > + next_freq = policy->min; > > > > + > > > > + sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time; > > > > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) { > > > > + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) > > > > + trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id()); > > > > + > > > > + return; > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq; > > > > + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) { > > > > + unsigned int freq; > > > > + > > > > + freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq); > > > > > > So you're assuming a RELATION_L for ->fast_switch() ? > > > > Yes, I am. > > Should we document that fact somewhere? Or alternatively, if you already > did, I simply missed it. I thought I did, but clearly that's not the case (I think I wrote about that in a changelog comments somewhere). I'll document it in the kerneldoc for cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() (patch [6/7]).