[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170711161731.plbzv42yv7l66fwh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:17:31 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net, 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>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 5/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all
CPUs when deciding next freq
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:59:02AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> delta_ns = time - j_sg_cpu->last_update;
> if (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC) {
> j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost = 0;
> - continue;
> + j_sg_cpu->util_cfs = 0;
this is slighly confusing. Is this because we might not 'continue' with
the new code?
> + if (j_sg_cpu->util_dl == 0)
> + continue;
> }
> +
> if (j_sg_cpu->flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT)
> return policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
>
> --
> 2.11.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists