[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171221104317.GB8312@vireshk-i7>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:13:17 +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, 11:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The difference is that we apply the per-cpu boost on the per-cpu util
> value and _then_ find the overall maximum.
>
> Instead of finding the overall maximum and then apply the per-cpu boost
> to that.
Okay, so it is just about the right sequencing of these comparisons but the
outcome will still be same, i.e. max of the 3 util/max values. Thanks.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists