lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks
    On 10/02/16 14:23, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
    > > Hi Rafael,
    > >
    > > On 09/02/16 21:05, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >
    > > [...]
    > >
    > >> +/**
    > >> + * cpufreq_update_util - Take a note about CPU utilization changes.
    > >> + * @util: Current utilization.
    > >> + * @max: Utilization ceiling.
    > >> + *
    > >> + * This function is called by the scheduler on every invocation of
    > >> + * update_load_avg() on the CPU whose utilization is being updated.
    > >> + */
    > >> +void cpufreq_update_util(unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
    > >> +{
    > >> + struct update_util_data *data;
    > >> +
    > >> + rcu_read_lock();
    > >> +
    > >> + data = rcu_dereference(*this_cpu_ptr(&cpufreq_update_util_data));
    > >> + if (data && data->func)
    > >> + data->func(data, cpu_clock(smp_processor_id()), util, max);
    > >
    > > Are util and max used anywhere?
    >
    > They aren't yet, but they will be.
    >
    > Maybe not in this cycle (it it takes too much time to integrate the
    > preliminary changes), but we definitely are going to use those
    > numbers.
    >

    Oh OK. However, I was under the impression that this set was only
    proposing a way to get rid of timers and use the scheduler as heartbeat
    for cpufreq governors. The governors' sample based approach wouldn't
    change, though. Am I wrong in assuming this?

    Also, is linux-pm/bleeding-edge the one I want to fetch to try this set
    out?

    Thanks,

    - Juri

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-02-10 15:21    [W:4.487 / U:0.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site