From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [Update PATCH 1/1] Cpufreq: Make governor data on nonboot cpus across system suspend/resume Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:10:45 +0100 Message-ID: <2340396.PKx5xUKfbU@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1384495294-10565-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <9847309.KdKOG5y1Zx@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:61504 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752947Ab3KPO6M (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Nov 2013 09:58:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Lan Tianyu , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List On Saturday, November 16, 2013 08:27:07 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 16 November 2013 20:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, November 16, 2013 11:59:59 AM Lan Tianyu wrote: > > >> Defaultly, all cpus use ondemand governor after bootup. Change one > >> non-boot cpu's governor to conservative, > > > > Well, why would anyone want to do that? Just out of curiosity ... > > People may want to use different group/cluster/socket of CPUs differently, > with different kind of policies. Maybe performance governor for boot cpu > and ondemand for others. > > This bug would also be there for big LITTLE where we want to have > separate set of tunables for big and LITTLE clusters for the same type > of governor. > > > So this is acpi-cpufreq, right? > > Probably yes, I saw something similar somewhere.. But this is driver > independent.. > > > The patch looks basically OK to me, but -> > > We wouldn't need this patch if my other patch (where I am disabling > governors in suspend/resume goes in, in any form).. Yes, I know that, but I don't think this is the right approach. Thanks! -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.