On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> + unsigned int next_freq)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> +
> + if (next_freq > policy->max)
> + next_freq = policy->max;
> + else if (next_freq < policy->min)
> + next_freq = policy->min;
> +
> + sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> + if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) {
> + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
> + trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id());
> +
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> + if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
> + unsigned int freq;
> +
> + freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
So you're assuming a RELATION_L for ->fast_switch() ?
> + if (freq == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID)
> + return;
> +
> + policy->cur = freq;
> + trace_cpu_frequency(freq, smp_processor_id());
> + } else {
> + sg_policy->work_in_progress = true;
> + irq_work_queue(&sg_policy->irq_work);
> + }
> +}
> +static void sugov_work(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct
> sugov_policy, work);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> + __cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
> + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
As per here, which I assume matches semantics on that point.
> + mutex_unlock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
> +
> + sg_policy->work_in_progress = false;
> +}
