RE: [PATCH 3/6 v4] cpufreq: tolerate inexact values when collectingstats

[Mark Langsdorf]

From: linux-pm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [linux-pm-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Langsdorf [mark.langsdorf@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> On 11/13/2012 10:24 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:35:49AM -0600, Mark Langsdorf wrote:
>>> The function is buried pretty deep in the cpufreq_stat code. It didn't
>>> seem appropriate to make it a function pointer as part of struct
>>> cpufreq_driver.
>>
>> Better yet, add a flag or a bitfield called "minimize_jitter" or similar
>> and set it only on your hardware...
>
> Doing it in two passes has a similar effect: systems that have exact
> frequencies will get caught in the first pass when the values match. But
> adding a flag makes sense.

I went back and looked at implementing this suggestion.

Although cpufreq_driver has a flag field, no part of cpufreq_driver is directly passed to the cpufreq_stat code. Only cpufreq_policy is. It's cleaner to do passes of the while loop than to copy the cpufreq_driver.flag field into cpufreq_policy and then store it again in cpufreq_stats.

--Mark Langsdorf
Calxeda, Inc.--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/