On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 06:53:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

+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.

These are for consistency mostly.

It actually occurs to me that __cpufreq_driver_target() does that already
anyway, so they can be moved into the "fast switch" branch.  Which means
that the code needs to be rearranged a bit here.