On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 01:52:04PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> >> wrote: > >> > So why not fix the tools? >> >> Because I can't. >> >> I just can't go and fix all of the tools binaries that people use out >> there and I want them to use recent kernels at the same time. >> > > Thing is; you're now letting random tracepoint user dictate kernel > implementation. That's a bad state to be in.
Fair enough. Admittedly, I was sort of divided on whether or not to drop the trace_cpu_frequency() call entirely and now I see another reason to do that. There is a change queued up for 4.12 that will cause the tracepoint to be triggered more often totally in vain which I don't think is a good thing at all. So I'll send a v2 dropping that call and we'll see if anyone complains.
