From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ACPI: Do cpufreq clamping for throttling per package v2 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 18:59:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20120206175918.GN11715@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1328545032-21373-1-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <1328545032-21373-5-git-send-email-andi@firstfloor.org> <20120206163106.GB32061@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:51162 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751518Ab2BFR7V (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:59:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120206163106.GB32061@srcf.ucam.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Andi Kleen , lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 04:31:06PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:17:11AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > +#define reduction_pctg(cpu) \ > > + per_cpu(cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg, phys_package_first_cpu(cpu)) > > I don't like using percentages here - we end up with the potential for The code was using percentages before, i merely moved the accounting to be per package. I don't disagree with changing them, but it should be probably a separate patch. -Andi