From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: schedutil: enable fast switch earlier Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:00:31 +0530 Message-ID: <20161114113031.GE4178@vireshk-i7> References: <1acfffe798c0371e69ec1171f485499e7b49ed6d.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20161114040622.GA29087@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161114040622.GA29087@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Lists linaro-kernel , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Vincent Guittot , Juri Lelli , Robin Randhawa List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 14-11-16, 09:36, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13-11-16, 15:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > That's only going to happen in the next patch, though, right? It > > wouldn't hurt to write that in the changelog too. > > Sure. > > > Besides, I'm not actually sure if starting/stopping the kthread in > > sugov_policy_alloc/free() is a good idea. It sort of conflates the > > allocation of memory with kthread creation. Any chance to untangle > > that? > > Hmm, so either I can create two new routines for the thread and call > them along with alloc/free. Or I can rename the alloc/free routines > and keep this patch as is. I have created separate routines in my new version (which I will send tomorrow). -- viresh