[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171219180223.4reegtvnmbge7dda@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:02:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@....com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Ramussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...cinc.com>,
Vikram Mulukutla <markivx@...eaurora.org>,
Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@...cle.com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@...cle.com>,
Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
EAS Dev <eas-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
Android Kernel <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] sched/fair: Correct obsolete comment about
cpufreq_update_util
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 07:39:43AM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 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.
>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
Sure, ACK
> ---
> 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 2fe3aa853e4d..1b10821d8380 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -3020,9 +3020,7 @@ 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
> --
> 2.15.1.504.g5279b80103-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists