From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S966060AbcCPWvs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:51:48 -0400
Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:53766 "HELO
	v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with SMTP id S933308AbcCPWvp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:51:45 -0400
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:53:47 +0100
Message-ID: <3401840.ChzILGGFZI@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.5.0-rc1+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20160316224054.GL6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1711281.bPmSjlBT7c@vostro.rjw.lan> <3456066.ocPAtCXNWC@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160316224054.GL6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:40:54 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:38:55PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 07:14:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 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;
> > > > +
> > > > +	sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> > > > +	if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq) {
> > > > +		if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
> > > > +			trace_cpu_frequency(policy->cur, smp_processor_id());
> > > > +
> > > > +		return;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> > > > +	if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
> > > > +		unsigned int freq;
> > > > +
> > > > +		freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
> > > 
> > > So you're assuming a RELATION_L for ->fast_switch() ?
> > 
> > Yes, I am.
> 
> Should we document that fact somewhere? Or alternatively, if you already
> did, I simply missed it.

I thought I did, but clearly that's not the case (I think I wrote about that
in a changelog comments somewhere).

I'll document it in the kerneldoc for cpufreq_driver_fast_switch() (patch [6/7]).