Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: Align trace event behavior of fast
 switching
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com
References: <20190807153340.11516-1-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
 <3316959.EEulJYEQYJ@kreacher>
 <20190826094058.GP2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <cb75ae16-727e-636b-2b79-4f049259c0aa@arm.com>
 <20190826112406.GR2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <eccb89bf-80cc-e96a-925e-181095305631@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:12:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190826112406.GR2369@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 26/08/2019 13:24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:51:17AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> 
>> Not sure about the extra  'if trace_cpu_frequency_enabled()' but I guess
>> it doesn't hurt.
> 
> Without that you do that for_each_cpu() iteration unconditionally, even
> if the tracepoint is disabled.

Makes sense, I'm wondering if we want this in
cpufreq_notify_transition() CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE for the
non-fast-switching drivers as well.