On 07/21/2017 06:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:14:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c index 47e24b5384b3..606b1a37a1af 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c @@ -275,6 +275,10 @@ static void dbs_update_util_handler(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time, struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = cdbs->policy_dbs; u64 delta_ns, lst;
- /* Don't allow remote callbacks */
- if (smp_processor_id() != data->cpu)
return;The alternative is using some of that policy_dbs->policy->*cpus crud I suppose, because:
No, the alternative is to pass it on to the CPU freq driver and let it decide what it wants to do. That's the whole point if having a CPU freq driver -- so that the generic code doesn't need to care about HW specific details. Which is the point I was making in an earlier email to Viresh's patch -- we shouldn't be doing any CPU check for the call backs at the scheduler or ever governor level.
That would simplify this whole thing by deleting a bunch of code. And having much simpler checks in those drivers that actually have to deal with their HW specific details.
-- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project