[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161114102254.GD4178@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:52:54 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@....com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: schedutil: move slow path from workqueue to
SCHED_FIFO task
On 14-11-16, 10:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Any static prio value is wrong (static prio assignment requires system
> knowledge that the kernel doesn't and cannot have), 50 is what threaded
> IRQs default too as well IIRC, so it would at least be consistent with
> that.
Yes you are correct and I have found a better way of defining the
priority in this case using that code instead of magic figure 50.
MAX_USER_RT_PRIO/2 :)
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists