Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:12:57 +0100 |
| |
On 11/07/17 15:59, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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.
Agreed, we should do it for slow-switching drivers from within the driver as well in this case.
| |