[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180206183623.GH5739@e110439-lin>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 18:36:24 +0000
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>,
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 06-Feb 19:14, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
> >At first glance, your proposal below makes to make sense.
> >
> >However, I'm wondering if we cannot get it working using
> >rq->dl's provided information instead of flags?
>
> Yes, we can use the value of rq->dl to check if there has been an increase of the deadline utilization.
> Even if schedutil might have been triggered by a different scheduling class, the effect should be almost the same.
>
> Below a potential patch. I've kept all frequency update decisions in a single point (i.e. sugov_should_update_freq).
> Not yet tested (waiting for further comments).
I have a todo list entry to backport/test Peter's series on Android...
will add this patch too. Thanks.
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists