[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpomHfV=2CQj0_D=PsoMvbCu5v_ensJqaZmxUURzr27+yhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:17:07 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization
update flags
On 16 December 2017 at 22:10, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>> +#define SCHED_CPUFREQ_CLEAR (1U << 31)
>
> I'm not thrilled by this, because schedutil is not the only user of
> the flags and it's totally unclear what the other user(s) should do
> when this is set.
intel-pstate is the only other user of the IOWAIT flag, right? In order
not to change the current behavior, we can update that to return early
for now ?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists