[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gJwLVezLTLwGX=GDrsGeH6X040JmOaW6_uX2XzQwO9mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 02:01:39 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> On 02/08/2016 03:06 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Now that all review comments have been addressed in patch [3/3], I'm going to
>> put this series into linux-next.
>>
>> There already is 20+ patches on top of it in the queue including fixes for
>> bugs that have haunted us for quite some time (and that functionally depend on
>> this set) and I'd really like all that to get enough linux-next coverage, so
>> there really isn't more time to wait.
>
> Sorry for the late reply. As Juri mentioned I was OOO last week and
> really just got to look at this today.
>
> One concern I had was, given that the lone scheduler update hook is in
> CFS, is it possible for governor updates to be stalled due to RT or DL
> task activity?
I don't think they may be completely stalled, but I'd prefer Peter to
answer that as he suggested to do it this way.
Peter?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists