On 18-02-16, 02:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
>
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s, od_cpu_dbs_info);
>
> +static struct dbs_governor od_dbs_gov;
> static struct od_ops od_ops;
>
> static unsigned int default_powersave_bias;
> @@ -222,7 +223,6 @@ static ssize_t store_io_is_busy(struct d
> {
> unsigned int input;
> int ret;
> - unsigned int j;
>
> ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &input);
> if (ret != 1)
> @@ -230,12 +230,8 @@ static ssize_t store_io_is_busy(struct d
> dbs_data->io_is_busy = !!input;
>
> /* we need to re-evaluate prev_cpu_idle */
> - for_each_online_cpu(j) {
> - struct od_cpu_dbs_info_s *dbs_info = &per_cpu(od_cpu_dbs_info,
> - j);
> - dbs_info->cdbs.prev_cpu_idle = get_cpu_idle_time(j,
> - &dbs_info->cdbs.prev_cpu_wall, dbs_data->io_is_busy);
> - }
We weren't doing ignore_nice_load check here, but will be done after
this patch. Will that make a different? And then this should be
mentioned in the log as well ?
Apart from that.
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
--
viresh
