On 10-06-16, 03:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>
> The conservative governor registers a transition notifier so it
> can update its internal requested_freq value if it falls out of the
> policy->min...policy->max range, but that's not the most
> straightforward way to achieve that.
>
> To do it in a more straightforward way, first make sure that
> cs_dbs_timer() will only set frequencies between min and max.
>
> With that, note that requested_freq will always fall between min
> and max unless either policy->min or policy->max changes and the
> governor's ->limits() callback will be invoked then.
>
> Using this observation, add a ->limits callback pointer to
> struct dbs_governor, make cpufreq_dbs_governor_limits() invoke
> that callback if present, implement that callback in the conservative
> governor to update requested_freq if needed and drop the transition
> notifier from it, which also makes it possible to drop the
> struct cs_governor definition from there and simplify the code
> accordingly.
This code looks to me over-complicated and I am not sure if I
understand why we wanted the notifiers anyway? Why can't we replace
'dbs_info->requested_freq' with 'policy->cur' and kill the notifier
thing completely?
With requested_freq, we are trying to set the next freq to
requested_freq +- Delta, which I am not sure is the best approach
here.
What would go wrong if we will do, policy->cur +- delta instead?
The notifiers were added long back, to solve a problem which I don't
think will exist if we use policy->cur everywhere instead:
commit a8d7c3bc2396 ("[CPUFREQ] Make cpufreq_conservative handle
out-of-sync events properly")
Am I missing something?
--
viresh
