From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:53:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20160316175341.GG6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1711281.bPmSjlBT7c@vostro.rjw.lan> <11678919.CQLTrQTYxG@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <11678919.CQLTrQTYxG@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Juri Lelli , Steve Muckle , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Srinivas Pandruvada , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Michael Turquette , Ingo Molnar List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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; I'm still very much undecided on these policy min/max thresholds. I don't particularly like them.