On 09-05-18, 08:45, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 08/05/18 21:54, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Isn't this potentially introducing unneeded irq pressure (and doing the > whole wakeup the kthread thing), while the already active kthread could > simply handle multiple back-to-back requests before going to sleep?
And then we may need more instances of the work item and need to store a different value of next_freq with each work item, as we can't use the common one anymore as there would be races around accessing it ? -- viresh
