Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: governor: support scheduler cpufreq callbacks on remote CPUs | Date | Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:21:24 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, April 29, 2016 04:08:16 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 19-04-16, 19:39, Steve Muckle wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > > index 20f0a4e114d1..429d3a5b9866 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c > > @@ -248,6 +248,20 @@ static void dbs_irq_work(struct irq_work *irq_work) > > schedule_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &policy_dbs->work); > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > +static inline void dbs_irq_work_queue(struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs, > > + int cpu) > > +{ > > + irq_work_queue_on(&policy_dbs->irq_work, cpu); > > +} > > +#else > > +static inline void dbs_irq_work_queue(struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs, > > + int cpu) > > +{ > > + irq_work_queue(&policy_dbs->irq_work); > > +} > > +#endif > > Any clue, why we don't have a non-SMP version of irq_work_queue_on(), Which can > simply call irq_work_queue() ?
Because nobody else needs it?
But I agree that it would be nicer to add the stub to irq_work.h.
| |