[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171221103022.GA8312@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:00:22 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates
On 21-12-17, 11:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:45:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 20-12-17, 16:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The below makes more sense to me too; hmm?
> > >
> > > @@ -335,12 +335,11 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shar
> > >
> > > j_max = j_sg_cpu->max;
> > > j_util = sugov_aggregate_util(j_sg_cpu);
> > > + sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max);
>
> This should 'obviously' have been:
>
> sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &j_util, *j_max);
Actually it should be:
sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &j_util, &j_max);
and this is how it was in the commit I reviewed from your tree. But my query
still stands, what difference will it make ?
> > > if (j_util * max > j_max * util) {
> > > util = j_util;
> > > max = j_max;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max);
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists