From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dietmar Eggemann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] cpufreq: provide data for frequency-invariant load-tracking support Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:06:01 +0100 Message-ID: <45224055-7bf1-243b-9366-0f2d3442ef59@arm.com> References: <20170706094948.8779-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <22f004af-0158-8265-2da5-34743f294bfb@arm.com> <12829054.TWIodSo4bb@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170711060106.GL2928@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170711060106.GL2928@vireshk-i7> Content-Language: en-GB Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Russell King - ARM Linux , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Morten Rasmussen List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 11/07/17 07:01, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-07-17, 13:02, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >> Yes, I will change this. The #define approach is not really necessary >> here since we're not in the scheduler hot-path and inlining is not >> really required here. > > It would be part of scheduler hot-path for the fast-switching case, isn't it ? > (I am not arguing against using weak functions, just wanted to correct above > statement). Yes you're right here. But in the meantime we're convinced that cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() is not the right place to call arch_set_freq_scale() since for (future) arm/arm64 fast-switch driver, the return value of cpufreq_driver->fast_switch() does not give us the information that the frequency value did actually change. So we probably have to do this soemwhere in the cpufreq driver(s) to support fast-switching until we have aperf/mperf like counters.