[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160802142843.GF9332@graphite.smuckle.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:28:43 -0700
From: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] cpufreq / sched: Make schedutil access
utilization data directly
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > Anyway one way that my patch differed was that I had used the flags
> > > field to keep the behavior the same for both RT and DL.
>
> Do you mean "go to max" policy for both, until proper policies will be
> implemented in the future?
Yep.
> > That happens
> > > later on in this series for RT but the DL policy is modified as above.
> > > Can the DL policy be left as-is and discussed/modified in a separate
> > > series?
>
> Not that we want to start discussing this point now, if we postpone the
> change for later, but I just wanted to point out a difference w.r.t.
> what the schedfreq thing was doing: it used to sum contributions from
> the different classes, instead of taking the max. We probably never
> really discussed on the list what is the right thing to do, though.
Yeah I figured that was worth deferring into its own patchset/thread.
cheers,
Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists