From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756096AbbJ1PvG (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:51:06 -0400 Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:48499 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755964AbbJ1PvD (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:51:03 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, open list Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/5] cpufreq: ondemand: update sampling rate immediately Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:13:19 +0100 Message-ID: <3949153.K5IjKZhpbI@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.1.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20151028152811.GE3716@ubuntu> References: <3215277.8YKq8PWCpx@vostro.rjw.lan> <20151028152811.GE3716@ubuntu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 08:58:11 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-10-15, 16:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Is the current code really problematic? > > Its not problematic, but just that I didn't like special code written > here. > > Also, its a blocker for the next patch which tries to schedule work on > all the policy->cpus together. Well, the second statement above sort of contradicts the first one. :-) I guess the answer is "it is problematic, because I can't do the other optimization then". To that I'd really suggest trying to rework the code to use timer functions directly in the first place. Thanks, Rafael