[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160420140117.GZ3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:01:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cpufreq: don't trigger cpufreq update w/o real
rt/deadline tasks running
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:32:35AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2016 01:51:24 PM Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > Sometimes update_curr() is called w/o tasks actually running, it is
> > captured by:
> > u64 delta_exec = rq_clock_task(rq) - curr->se.exec_start;
> > We should not trigger cpufreq update in this case for rt/deadline
> > classes, and this patch fix it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
>
> The signed-off-by tag should agree with the From: header. One way to achieve
> that is to add an extra From: line at the start of the changelog.
>
> That said, this looks like a good catch that should go into 4.6 to me.
>
> Peter, what do you think?
I'm confused by the Changelog. *what* ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists