[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609222055110.5640@nanos>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:56:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Use CPPC to get max
performance
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 22:30 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > My current understanding is that we need to rebuild sched domains
> > after setting the priorities,
>
> No, that's not true. We need to rebuild the sched domains only
> when the sched domain flags are changed, not when we are changing
> the priorities. Only the sched domain flag is a property of
> the sched domain. CPU priority values are not part of sched domain.
>
> Morten had similar question about whether we need to rebuild sched domain
> when we change cpu priorities when we first post the patches.
> Peter has explained that it wasn't necessary.
> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1608.3/01753.html
And why is there no explanation in form of a comment in the code?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists