[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171207141927.GR31247@e110439-lin>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 14:19:27 +0000
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: update CFS util only if used
On 07-Dec 10:45, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 30-11-17, 15:57, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > Yes, that's a pretty trivial update with a confusing changelog.
> >
> > If we think it's worth to keep (and correct as well) I'll update the
> > commit message.
>
> We also need to update the commit log based on feedback from Vikram on
> V2. Which said that the utilization can't change around the lock here
> as we are within rq lock section, though max can change (maybe). So
> this patch only takes care of locking before reading max.
Ok, right... will do.
Thus you are still of the opinion to keep this patch in the series?
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists