Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S935983AbcCQMzF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:55:05 -0400
Received: from mail-lf0-f65.google.com ([209.85.215.65]:36421 "EHLO
	mail-lf0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S933037AbcCQMzB (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:55:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160317113622.GS6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <2495375.dFbdlAZmA6@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<4088601.C2vItRYpQn@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<1711281.bPmSjlBT7c@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<18957412.GBWZqUOZtk@vostro.rjw.lan>
	<20160317113622.GS6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:54:58 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: quVAJkTSyOgEPgub3iZYWMfJp-U
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j2TtZQKsPZ-rM8sPWeiy4m6v5yiXcjfN5KBA-vT+9FBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7][Update] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on
 scheduler utilization data
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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: 840
Lines: 24

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 01:01:45AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> +     } else if (sg_policy->next_freq != next_freq) {
>> +             sg_policy->work_cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> +             irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
>> +     }
>> +}
>
>> +static void sugov_irq_work(struct irq_work *irq_work)
>> +{
>> +     struct sugov_policy *sg_policy;
>> +
>> +     sg_policy = container_of(irq_work, struct sugov_policy, irq_work);
>> +     schedule_work_on(sg_policy->work_cpu, &sg_policy->work);
>> +}
>
> Not sure I see the point of ->work_cpu, irq_work_queue() does guarantee
> the same CPU, so the above is identical to:
>
>         schedule_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &sq_policy->work);

OK

I'll do that and restore work_in_progress, then.