On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:47:22PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> >> >> Introduce a mechanism by which parts of the cpufreq subsystem >> ("setpolicy" drivers or the core) can register callbacks to be >> executed from cpufreq_update_util() which is invoked by the >> scheduler's update_load_avg() on CPU utilization changes. >> >> This allows the "setpolicy" drivers to dispense with their timers >> and do all of the computations they need and frequency/voltage >> adjustments in the update_load_avg() code path, among other things. >> >> The update_load_avg() changes were suggested by Peter Zijlstra. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 45 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 4 ++++ >> kernel/sched/fair.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> kernel/sched/rt.c | 4 ++++ >> kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 + >> 6 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > So with the understanding that we'll work on getting rid of > cpufreq_trigger_update().
That definitely is the plan. > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <[email protected]> Thanks! :-) > Also, Vincent had some concerns about the exact placement of the > callback, and I see no problem in moving it if there's need. Yup, same here.
