[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJWu+orWw6TFy165d1a=Fk4AfGNfSvcZ9SGj5KKD6V4YSqK50g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:32:09 -0800
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: LKML <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@...hat.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>,
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>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
EAS Dev <eas-dev@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] cpufreq: schedutil: Use idle_calls counter of the
remote CPU
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:47:12AM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Since the recent remote cpufreq callback work, its possible that a cpufreq
>> update is triggered from a remote CPU. For single policies however, the current
>> code uses the local CPU when trying to determine if the remote sg_cpu entered
>> idle or is busy. This is incorrect. To remedy this, compare with the nohz tick
>> idle_calls counter of the remote CPU.
>>
>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Sweet!
>
>> ---
>> Just resending this which is cpufreq-related as requested by Rafael rebased
>> on linus/master.
>>
>> The other 2 patches in my last series which can go in independent of this one are:
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115395/
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115401/
>> I'm still waiting on scheduler maintainers to comment on those. Unfortunately,
>> I haven't heard back anything yet since the last repost of those.
>
> Both of us have been somewhat preoccupied with that whole kaiser/pti
> thing the past few weeks.
I understand, thanks for taking time to look at it! Hopefully you're
Ok with the second one as well
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115401). And this cap aware
one's been pretty beaten to death too:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10113337/ but let me know your
objections if any.
>
> I have an absolutely stupid backlog :/
I see. :/
I am thinking of spending more time reviewing fwiw and hopefully
helping relieve some of that burden. Happy to help in any other way as
well so let me/us know how we can help.
thanks,
- Joel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists