On 31 May 2013 22:03, Stratos Karafotis <strat...@semaphore.gr> wrote: > On 05/31/2013 11:51 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> I believe you should have removed other users of getavg() in a separate >> patch and also cc'd relevant people so that you can some review comments >> from them. > > I will split the patch in two. If it's OK, I will keep the removal of > __cpufreq_driver_getavg in the original patch and move the clean up of > APERF/MPERF support in a second patch. I will also cc relevant people.
Even removal of __cpufreq_driver_getavg() should be done in a separate patch, so that it can be reverted easily if required later. >> "Proportional to load" means C * load, so why is "policy->max / 100" *the* >> right C? > > I think, finally(?) I see your point. The right C should be > "policy->cpuinfo.max_freq / 100". Why are you changing it to cpuinfo.max_freq?? This is fixed once a driver is initialized.. but user may request a lower max freq for a governor or policy. Which is actually reflected in policy->max I believe. Over that why keeping following check is useful anymore? if (load_freq > od_tuners->up_threshold) goto max. As, if load is over 95, then even policy->max * 95 / 100 will even give almost the same freq. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/