Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: don't call cpufreq_update_policy() on CPU addition
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <hidden>
Date: 2014-02-17 00:07:04
Also in:
lkml
On Friday, February 14, 2014 04:30:41 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
cpufreq_update_policy() is called from two places currently. From a workqueue handled queued from cpufreq_bp_resume() for boot CPU and from cpufreq_cpu_callback() whenever a CPU is added. The first one makes sure that boot CPU is running on the frequency present in policy->cpu. But we don't really need a call from cpufreq_cpu_callback(), because we always call cpufreq_driver->init() (which will set policy->cur correctly) whenever first CPU of any policy is added back. And so every policy structure is guaranteed to have the right frequency in policy->cur.
That sounds good, but doing the extra cpufreq_update_policy() shouldn't actually hurt, should it? So, that would be a cleanup rather than a fix, right?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index 383362b..b6eb4ed 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c@@ -2194,7 +2194,6 @@ static int cpufreq_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb, switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) { case CPU_ONLINE: __cpufreq_add_dev(dev, NULL, frozen); - cpufreq_update_policy(cpu); break; case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.