[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180411105828.GL4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:58:28 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: 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>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq/schedutil: Cleanup, document and fix iowait
boost
On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:44:45AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > - sugov_set_iowait_boost: is now in charge only to set/increase the IO
> > > wait boost, every time a task wakes up from an IO wait.
> > >
> > > - sugov_iowait_boost: is now in charge to reset/reduce the IO wait
> > > boost, every time a sugov update is triggered, as well as
> > > to (eventually) enforce the currently required IO boost value.
> >
> > I'm not sold on those function names; feels like we can do better,
> > although I'm struggling to come up with anything sensible just now.
>
> What about something like:
>
> sugov_iowait_init()
> since here we are mainly initializing the iowait boost
>
> sugov_iowait_boost()
> since here we are mainly applying the proper boost to each cpu
>
> Although they are not really so different...
How about:
sugov_iowait_boost() -- does the actual impulse/boost
sugov_iowait_apply() -- applies the boost state
?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists