On 09/11/2013 04:15 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11 September 2013 16:14, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: >> But I would have solved it differently :) >> >> We don't really need to call update_policy_cpu() again and again >> as we don't really need to update policy->cpu... >> >> Rather it would be better to just move following inside >> cpufreq_policy_alloc(): > > Half written mail sent :( > > What about moving following to cpufreq_policy_alloc(): > > policy->cpu = cpu; > > ?? >
Hmm? The problem is not about merely updating the policy->cpu field; the main issue is that the existing code was not letting the cpufreq-stats code know that we updated the policy->cpu under the hood. It is important for cpufreq-stats to know this because it maintains the reference to its stats structure by associating it with the policy->cpu. So if policy->cpu changes under the hood, it loses track of its reference. So we need to keep that code informed about changes to policy->cpu. Thus, we need to call update_policy_cpu() in the CPU online path (during resume). I don't see how we can skip that. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- 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/
