From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752958Ab0CWQ6x (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:58:53 -0400 Received: from mga10.intel.com ([192.55.52.92]:16915 "EHLO fmsmga102.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752816Ab0CWQ6v (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:58:51 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,296,1267430400"; d="scan'208";a="551434959" Message-ID: <4BA8F34C.9040401@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:58:52 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Renninger CC: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Robert_Sch=F6ne?= , Dave Jones , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel , cpufreq , x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace power_frequency events on the correct cpu (for Intel x86 CPUs) References: <1268399863.3407.15.camel@localhost> <4BA7773A.5080206@linux.intel.com> <1269361716.3475.1.camel@localhost> <201003231757.51259.trenn@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <201003231757.51259.trenn@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/23/2010 9:57, Thomas Renninger wrote: > On Tuesday 23 March 2010 17:28:36 Robert Schöne wrote: >> Am Montag, den 22.03.2010, 06:57 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: >>> On 3/22/2010 0:04, Robert Schöne wrote: >>>> Am Sonntag, den 21.03.2010, 17:42 -0700 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: >>>>> On 3/20/2010 14:37, Thomas Renninger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It also seem to be (hopefully) a minor feature for timechart, so this should >>>>>> not hurt that much (yet). >>>>> >>>>> It's actually a major feature for timechart, and one of the key things I and a bunch of others >>>>> inside Intel use timechart for. >>>>> >>>> It's a major feature for us too. >>>> I suppose, the cpufreq_notify_transition calls are correct (meaning >>>> being called for all related cpus) for every driver. So there's still >>>> the option to include it in the POST_CHANGE section of this function. >>>> Could this be okay for the both of you? >>> >>> post change would work... that gets frequency afaik.. >> Are you ok with this too, Thomas? > You mean hooking it into cpufreq_stat_notifier_trans() in > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c? no hooking into the post frequency change callback that gets done.. which is guaranteed to be on the right cpu afaics.