On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:40:54 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Should we document that fact somewhere? Or alternatively, if you already
> did, I simply missed it.
I thought I did, but clearly that's not the case (I think I wrote about that
in a changelog comments somewhere).
I'll document it in the kerneldoc for cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() (patch
[6/7]).
