MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gMDoLrdCqxnyUQqWydqj6Ot0ssf=P9=hOk_bOG9gCi0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <1acfffe798c0371e69ec1171f485499e7b49ed6d.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0gMDoLrdCqxnyUQqWydqj6Ot0ssf=P9=hOk_bOG9gCi0Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:49:41 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohponvq3vuzNvaGE7_Pn8vM54AMPZu_E8yRyeytegh-bjuzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: schedutil: enable fast switch earlier
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 512
Lines: 17

On 12 November 2016 at 03:28, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:

>> @@ -478,8 +484,6 @@ static void sugov_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>         struct sugov_tunables *tunables = sg_policy->tunables;
>>         unsigned int count;
>>
>> -       cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(policy);
>> -
>
> ->but why is this change necessary?
>
> sugov_stop() has been called already, so the ordering here shouldn't matter.

Because sugov_policy_free() would be using the flag fast_switch_enabled.

--
viresh