[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160316223916.GK6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:39:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...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>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on
scheduler utilization data
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:38:14PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > If you care what cpu the work runs on, you should schedule_work_on(),
> > regular schedule_work() can end up on any random cpu (although typically
> > it does not).
>
> I know, but I don't care too much.
>
> "ondemand" and "conservative" use schedule_work() for the same thing, so
> drivers need to cope with that if they need things to run on a particular
> CPU.
Or are just plain buggy -- like a lot of code that uses schedule_work()
for per-cpu thingies; that is, its a fairly common bug and only recently
did we add that RR thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists