[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180409163029.GJ4064@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:30:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/6] sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on
task wake-up
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:36:06PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) {
> record_wakee(p);
> + want_energy = wake_energy(p, prev_cpu);
> want_affine = !wake_wide(p) && !wake_cap(p, cpu, prev_cpu)
> - && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed);
> + && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed)
> + && !want_energy;
Could you please fix that and put the operators at the end of the
previous line?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists