From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755135Ab3BDMKv (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2013 07:10:51 -0500 Received: from hydra.sisk.pl ([212.160.235.94]:36171 "EHLO hydra.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755014Ab3BDMKs (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Feb 2013 07:10:48 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Viresh Kumar Cc: cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org, robin.randhawa@arm.com, Steve.Bannister@arm.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPUFreq: Implement per policy instances of governors Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:17:04 +0100 Message-ID: <5808458.pvV2iHpBWm@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.8.0-rc6; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: 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 Monday, February 04, 2013 05:08:50 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > Currently, there can't be multiple instances of single governor_type. If we have > a multi-package system, where we have multiple instances of struct policy (per > package), we can't have multiple instances of same governor. i.e. We can't have > multiple instances of ondemand governor for multiple packages. > > Governors directory in sysfs is created at /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ > governor-name/. Which again reflects that there can be only one instance of a > governor_type in the system. > > This is a bottleneck for multicluster system, where we want different packages > to use same governor type, but with different tunables. > > This patchset is inclined towards fixing this issue. > > Viresh Kumar (4): > cpufreq: Don't check cpu_online(policy->cpu) > cpufreq: stats: Get rid of CPUFREQ_STATDEVICE_ATTR > cpufreq: Add per policy governor-init/exit infrastructure > cpufreq: governor: Implement per policy instances of governors Well, [1-2/4] are things I can take for v3.9 no problem. The other two I'd wait for the next cycle to be honest. We already have 30+ cpufreq patches scheduled for v3.9 and some of them quite subtle for that matter. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.