Hi Rafael, Please also review the patch. I'm not sure if you have reviewed or not.
Thank you! On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:17:27 +0530 Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 24-02-21, 14:39, Yue Hu wrote: > > From: Yue Hu <huy...@yulong.com> > > > > Note that sugov_update_next_freq() may return false, that means the > > caller sugov_fast_switch() will do nothing except fast switch check. > > > > Similarly, sugov_deferred_update() also has unnecessary operations > > of raw_spin_{lock,unlock} in sugov_update_single_freq() for that case. > > > > So, let's call sugov_update_next_freq() before the fast switch check > > to avoid unnecessary behaviors above. Accordingly, update interface > > definition to sugov_deferred_update() and remove sugov_fast_switch() > > since we will call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() directly instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yue Hu <huy...@yulong.com> > > --- > > v2: remove sugov_fast_switch() and call cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() > > directly instead, also update minor log message. > > > > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 ++++++++++++----------------- > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>