[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171028095941.4773-5-joelaf@google.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:59:40 -0700
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada" <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"Cc: Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Cc: Juri Lelli" <juri.lelli@....com>,
"Cc: Patrick Bellasi" <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
"Cc: Steve Muckle" <smuckle@...gle.com>,
"Cc: Brendan Jackman" <brendan.jackman@....com>,
"Cc: Chris Redpath" <Chris.Redpath@....com>,
"Cc: Atish Patra" <atish.patra@...cle.com>,
"Cc: Dietmar Eggemann" <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
"Cc: Vincent Guittot" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"Cc: Morten Ramussen" <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
"Cc: Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Cc: Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Cc: EAS Dev" <eas-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
"Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 4/5] sched/fair: Correct obsolete comment about cpufreq_update_util
Since the remote cpufreq callback work, the cpufreq_update_util call can happen
from remote CPUs. The comment about local CPUs is thus obsolete. Update it
accordingly.
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 4c06e52935d3..5c49fdb4c508 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3018,9 +3018,7 @@ static inline void cfs_rq_util_change(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
/*
* There are a few boundary cases this might miss but it should
* get called often enough that that should (hopefully) not be
- * a real problem -- added to that it only calls on the local
- * CPU, so if we enqueue remotely we'll miss an update, but
- * the next tick/schedule should update.
+ * a real problem.
*
* It will not get called when we go idle, because the idle
* thread is a different class (!fair), nor will the utilization
--
2.15.0.rc2.357.g7e34df9404-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists