On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:55:23PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > +static inline bool sugov_queue_remote_callback(struct sugov_policy
> >> > *sg_policy,
> >> > + int cpu)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> >> > +
> >> > + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(smp_processor_id(), policy->cpus)) {
> >>
> >> This check is overkill for policies that aren't shared (and we have a
> >> special case for them already).
> >
> > I don't see why it is overkill -
>
> Because it requires more computation, memory accesses etc than simply
> comparing smp_processor_id() with cpu.
Do you have a preference on how to restructure this? Otherwise I'll
create a second version of sugov_update_commit, factoring out as much of
it as I can into two inline sub-functions.
...
>
> > but it seems like an odd inconsistency for the governor to trace unchanged
> > frequencies when fast switches are enabled but not otherwise. It'd be
> > useful I think for profiling and tuning if the tracing was consistent.
>
> Well, fair enough.
>
> > This behavioral change is admittedly not part of the purpose of the
> > patch and could be split out if needbe.
>
> No need to split IMO, but it might be prudent to mention that change
> in behavior in the changelog.
Will do.
thanks,
Steve
