From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] cpufreq: ondemand: update sampling rate immediately Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 21:17:29 +0530 Message-ID: <20151028154729.GI3716@ubuntu> References: <3215277.8YKq8PWCpx@vostro.rjw.lan> <20151028152811.GE3716@ubuntu> <3949153.K5IjKZhpbI@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]:33874 "EHLO mail-pa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756112AbbJ1Prd (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:47:33 -0400 Received: by padhk11 with SMTP id hk11so10562195pad.1 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3949153.K5IjKZhpbI@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list On 28-10-15, 17:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, the second statement above sort of contradicts the first one. :-) > > I guess the answer is "it is problematic, because I can't do the other > optimization then". Hehe, right. > To that I'd really suggest trying to rework the code to use timer > functions directly in the first place. I will, but this problem will be present there as well. Because at that point of time, we will talk about per-cpu timers instead of delayed-works. -- viresh