On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 07:14:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> > + unsigned int next_freq)
> > +{
> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > +
> > + if (next_freq > policy->max)
> > + next_freq = policy->max;
> > + else if (next_freq < policy->min)
> > + next_freq = policy->min;
> > +
> > + sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> > + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) {
> > + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
> > + trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id());
> > +
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> > + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
> > + unsigned int freq;
> > +
> > + freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
>
> So you're assuming a RELATION_L for ->fast_switch() ?
Yes, I am.
> > + if (freq == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + policy->cur = freq;
> > + trace_cpu_frequency(freq, smp_processor_id());
> > + } else {
> > + sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
> > + irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
> > + }
> > +}
>
>
> > +static void sugov_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct
> > sugov_policy, work);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> > + __cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
> > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>
> As per here, which I assume matches semantics on that point.
Correct.
