Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:59:54 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 04:06:01 PM Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 11/07/17 07:01, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 10-07-17, 13:02, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >> Yes, I will change this. The #define approach is not really necessary > >> here since we're not in the scheduler hot-path and inlining is not > >> really required here. > > > > It would be part of scheduler hot-path for the fast-switching case, isn't it ? > > (I am not arguing against using weak functions, just wanted to correct above > > statement). > > Yes you're right here. > > But in the meantime we're convinced that cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() is > not the right place to call arch_set_freq_scale() since for (future) > arm/arm64 fast-switch driver, the return value of > cpufreq_driver->fast_switch() does not give us the information that the > frequency value did actually change. > > So we probably have to do this soemwhere in the cpufreq driver(s) to > support fast-switching until we have aperf/mperf like counters.
If that's the case, I'd say call arch_set_freq_scale() from drivers in all cases or it will get *really* confusing.
Thanks, Rafael
| |