From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752937AbcKLFTo (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Nov 2016 00:19:44 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f172.google.com ([209.85.220.172]:34252 "EHLO mail-qk0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750793AbcKLFTm (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Nov 2016 00:19:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1acfffe798c0371e69ec1171f485499e7b49ed6d.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> From: Viresh Kumar Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:49:41 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] cpufreq: schedutil: enable fast switch earlier To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Lists linaro-kernel , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Vincent Guittot , Juri Lelli , Robin Randhawa 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 12 November 2016 at 03:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> @@ -478,8 +484,6 @@ static void sugov_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) >> struct sugov_tunables *tunables = sg_policy->tunables; >> unsigned int count; >> >> - cpufreq_disable_fast_switch(policy); >> - > > ->but why is this change necessary? > > sugov_stop() has been called already, so the ordering here shouldn't matter. Because sugov_policy_free() would be using the flag fast_switch_enabled. -- viresh