[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jfd6JsnSsk2SPv3AT=gjMyWFby3q32YcJrMuCK1ZoK8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 18:34:19 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. 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 Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 18-12-17, 12:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> Well, if SCHED_CPUFRREQ_CLEAR means "this CPU is going to enter the
>> idle loop" really, then it is better to call it
>> SCHED_CPUFRREQ_ENTER_IDLE, for example.
>>
>> SCHED_CPUFRREQ_CLEAR meaning basically "you should clear these flags
>> now" doesn't seem to convey any information to whoever doesn't
>> squirrel the flags in the first place.
>
> Right, but when all the flags are cleared, then we can infer that we
> are going to idle in the most probable case.
>
> Anyway, I will implement RT and DL clear flags as you suggested in the
> next version.
Cool, thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists