From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1425070AbcBRFpJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:45:09 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:35077 "EHLO mail-pf0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1424610AbcBRFo4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:44:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:14:42 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/12] cpufreq: governor: Fix CPU load information updates via ->store Message-ID: <20160218054442.GL2610@vireshk-i7> References: <2938006.67J0esUvOA@vostro.rjw.lan> <1474960.ULEHzzY9qD@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1474960.ULEHzzY9qD@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18-02-16, 02:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ > > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s, od_cpu_dbs_info); > > +static struct dbs_governor od_dbs_gov; > static struct od_ops od_ops; > > static unsigned int default_powersave_bias; > @@ -222,7 +223,6 @@ static ssize_t store_io_is_busy(struct d > { > unsigned int input; > int ret; > - unsigned int j; > > ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input); > if (ret != 1) > @@ -230,12 +230,8 @@ static ssize_t store_io_is_busy(struct d > dbs_data->io_is_busy = !!input; > > /* we need to re-evaluate prev_cpu_idle */ > - for_each_online_cpu(j) { > - struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info, > - j); > - dbs_info->cdbs.prev_cpu_idle = get_cpu_idle_time(j, > - &dbs_info->cdbs.prev_cpu_wall, dbs_data->io_is_busy); > - } We weren't doing ignore_nice_load check here, but will be done after this patch. Will that make a different? And then this should be mentioned in the log as well ? Apart from that. Acked-by: Viresh Kumar -- viresh