Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: ondemand: handle SW coordinated CPUs | Date | Thu, 22 Nov 2012 22:27:10 +0100 |
| |
On Thursday, November 22, 2012 06:02:37 PM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > Hello Rafael, > > thanks for the review! I only have one concern before sending a v4: > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 01:10:15AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > @@ -627,32 +659,41 @@ static void do_dbs_timer(struct work_struct *work) > > > delay -= jiffies % delay; > > > } > > > } else { > > > - __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cur_policy, > > > - dbs_info->freq_lo, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); > > > + if (sample) > > > + __cpufreq_driver_target(dbs_info->cur_policy, > > > + dbs_info->freq_lo, > > > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); > > > delay = dbs_info->freq_lo_jiffies; > > > } > > > - schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, &dbs_info->work, delay); > > > + schedule_delayed_work_on(smp_processor_id(), dw, delay); > > > > We're not supposed to be using smp_processor_id() any more. > > get_cpu()/put_cpu() should be used instead. > > That's going to add preemption protection, do I need that? The function > is called from a kworker with the affinity set on a specific CPU, so it > should not migrate to a different one during execution.
Yes, you're right, in that case it should be OK.
> I agree with you for all the other comments.
Cool. :-)
Thanks, Rafael
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |