From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: governor: replace per-cpu delayed work with timers Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:05:26 +0530 Message-ID: <20151130133526.GD4899@ubuntu> References: <1448885103.8275.31.camel@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:33827 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752943AbbK3Nfa (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:35:30 -0500 Received: by padhx2 with SMTP id hx2so185376347pad.1 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 05:35:30 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1448885103.8275.31.camel@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Lucas Stach Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , open list On 30-11-15, 13:05, Lucas Stach wrote: > I don't want to block this patch on that, but maybe as a thought for > further consideration: Wouldn't it make sense to use a single unbound > deferrable work item for this? There was some work to make this possible > already: "timer: make deferrable cpu unbound timers really not bound to > a cpu" Yes, it would be sensible but that work has gone nowhere since April. Once that is merged, we can think about it. -- viresh