Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:36:02 -0800 | From | Matthias Kaehlcke <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: devfreq: change deferred work into delayed |
| |
Hi Lukasz,
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 04:30:05PM +0100, Lukasz Luba wrote: > This patch changes deferred work to delayed work, which is now not missed > when timer is put on CPU that entered idle state. > The devfreq framework governor was not called, thus changing the device's > frequency did not happen. > Benchmarks for stressing Dynamic Memory Controller show x2 (in edge cases > even x5) performance boost with this patch when 'simpleondemand_governor' > is responsible for monitoring the device load and frequency changes. > > With this patch, the delayed work is done no mater CPUs' idle. > All of the drivers in devfreq which rely on periodic, guaranteed wakeup > intervals should benefit from it. > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <l.luba@partner.samsung.com> > --- > drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c > index 882e717..c200b3c 100644 > --- a/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/devfreq.c > @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ static void devfreq_monitor(struct work_struct *work) > */ > void devfreq_monitor_start(struct devfreq *devfreq) > { > - INIT_DEFERRABLE_WORK(&devfreq->work, devfreq_monitor); > + INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&devfreq->work, devfreq_monitor); > if (devfreq->profile->polling_ms) > schedule_delayed_work(&devfreq->work, > msecs_to_jiffies(devfreq->profile->polling_ms));
I'd suggest to swap the order of the patches in this series.
Why, you may ask, if the end product is the same? This patch ([2/2]) fixes an actual problem, while IIUC [1/2] is just an improvement, the fix doesn't really depend on it. If -stable wants to integrate the fix, they also need to pick the improvement (or resolve a conflict), which might not be desired.
Otherwise this looks sane to me:
Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
| |