[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171220181608.ztar2d5vrthclhc5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:16:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
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 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 06:38:14PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 20/12/17 16:30, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > @@ -327,12 +331,7 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shar
> > if (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC) {
> > j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost = 0;
> > j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost_pending = false;
> > - j_sg_cpu->util_cfs = 0;
> > - if (j_sg_cpu->util_dl == 0)
> > - continue;
> > }
>
> This goes away because with Brendan/Vincent fix we don't need the
> workaround for stale CFS util contribution for idle CPUs anymore?
Oh, good point, no I took that out because of:
@@ -314,6 +315,9 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shar
unsigned long j_util, j_max;
s64 delta_ns;
+ if (j_sg_cpu != sg_cpu)
+ sugov_get_util(j_sg_cpu);
+
/*
* If the CFS CPU utilization was last updated before the
* previous frequency update and the time elapsed between the
which recomputes the util value all the time. But yes, that still needs
those other patches to stay relevant.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists