Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-52153-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:08:14 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Lizhe <sensor1010@163.com>
Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org, ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com,
	rafael@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq/schedutil: When updating limitations, frequency
 modulation interval not become invalid.
Message-ID: <20240205073814.s656yzrv56tecji3@vireshk-i7>
References: <20240204140928.2865-1-sensor1010@163.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240204140928.2865-1-sensor1010@163.com>

On 04-02-24, 06:09, Lizhe wrote:
> If the current frequency scaling policy is schedutil.
> echo schedutil > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
> This would result in an invalid frequency modulation interval.
> In sugov_limit(), sg_policy->limits_changed is set to true.

That will only make us do an extra freq change. What's the problem with that ?

> Signed-off-by: Lizhe <sensor1010@163.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 44db4f59c4cc..a0af38fcb7e2 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2631,7 +2631,7 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  
>  	if (new_gov == policy->governor) {
>  		pr_debug("governor limits update\n");
> -		cpufreq_governor_limits(policy);
> +		cpufreq_policy_apply_limits(policy);
>  		return 0;
>  	}

-- 
viresh