From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934635AbcCPRyJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:54:09 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:37308 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750787AbcCPRyH (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:54:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:53:41 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Linux PM list , Juri Lelli , Steve Muckle , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Srinivas Pandruvada , Viresh Kumar , Vincent Guittot , Michael Turquette , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data Message-ID: <20160316175341.GG6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1711281.bPmSjlBT7c@vostro.rjw.lan> <11678919.CQLTrQTYxG@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <11678919.CQLTrQTYxG@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > +static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time, > + unsigned int next_freq) > +{ > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy; > + > + if (next_freq > policy->max) > + next_freq = policy->max; > + else if (next_freq < policy->min) > + next_freq = policy->min; I'm still very much undecided on these policy min/max thresholds. I don't particularly like them.