From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753954AbbK3Nfc (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:35:32 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.220.42]:32990 "EHLO mail-pa0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753012AbbK3Nfa (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:35:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:05:26 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Lucas Stach Cc: Rafael Wysocki , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] cpufreq: governor: replace per-cpu delayed work with timers Message-ID: <20151130133526.GD4899@ubuntu> References: <1448885103.8275.31.camel@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1448885103.8275.31.camel@pengutronix.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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