On 02/04/2015 03:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 02:28:55 PM Saravana Kannan wrote:
On 02/03/2015 10:20 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 03:58, Saravana Kannan skannan@codeaurora.org wrote:
Can you explain why we need a fallback list in the first place? Now that we are not destroying and creating policy objects, I don't see any point in the fallback list.
Because we wanted to mark the policy inactive. But as I have introduced another field for that now, probably it can be fixed. Will check again on what can be done.
Thanks. That's why I was asking. Now that you have another flag. Also, you might not even need a flag. You can just check if policy->cpus is empty (btw, I think we should let that go to empty)
So the idea would be to avoid clearig cpufreq_cpu_data during offline tear-down (because we know that the CPU is offline anyway) and then start using the same policy pointer during offline?
Yeah. We still don't clear the policy->cpus today when the last CPU goes down. But that can be done easily by changing a few "if" conditions and rearranging the hotplug notifier code (I think it's mostly there with this series). Once we clear policy->cpus when all CPUs are offline, we can just use that data to figure out if it's "active" or not.
-Saravana