On 19-02-21, 14:41, Yue Hu wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 09:39:33 +0530 > Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 19-02-21, 11:38, Yue Hu wrote: > > > There's a possibility: we will use the previous freq to update if > > > next_f is reduced for busy CPU if need_freq_update is set in > > > sugov_update_next_freq(). > > > > Right. > > > > > This possibility would happen now? And this > > > update is what we want if it happens? > > > > This is exactly what we want here, don't reduce speed for busy CPU, > > I understand it should not skip this update but set the same freq as > previous one again for the special case if need_freq_update is set. Am > i rt?
The special check, about not reducing freq if CPU had been busy recently, doesn't have anything to do with need_freq_update. Though previously we added the need_freq_update check there to make sure we account for any recent policy min/max change and don't skip freq update anymore. That won't happen anymore and so we don't need any check here related to need_freq_update. If you still have doubt, please explain your concern in detail with an example as I am failing to understand it. -- viresh
