[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2348394.hDdCk9fbgK@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 00:41:36 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
bristot@...hat.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, tkjos@...roid.com,
joelaf@...gle.com, andresoportus@...gle.com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
patrick.bellasi@....com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD PATCH 4/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all CPUs when deciding next freq
On Friday, March 24, 2017 02:08:59 PM Juri Lelli wrote:
> No assumption can be made upon the rate at which frequency updates get
> triggered, as there are scheduling policies (like SCHED_DEADLINE) which
> don't trigger them so frequently.
>
> Remove such assumption from the code.
But the util/max values for idle CPUs may be stale, no?
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists