On 07/21/2017 06:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:14:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
index 47e24b5384b3..606b1a37a1af 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
@@ -275,6 +275,10 @@ static void dbs_update_util_handler(struct
update_util_data *data, u64 time,
struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = cdbs->policy_dbs;
u64 delta_ns, lst;
+ /* Don't allow remote callbacks */
+ if (smp_processor_id() != data->cpu)
+ return;
+
The alternative is using some of that policy_dbs->policy->*cpus crud I
suppose, because:
No, the alternative is to pass it on to the CPU freq driver and let it
decide what it wants to do. That's the whole point if having a CPU freq
driver -- so that the generic code doesn't need to care about HW
specific details. Which is the point I was making in an earlier email to
Viresh's patch -- we shouldn't be doing any CPU check for the call backs
at the scheduler or ever governor level.
That would simplify this whole thing by deleting a bunch of code. And
having much simpler checks in those drivers that actually have to deal
with their HW specific details.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
