[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180508111451.rmoi2rk3md6lhbvl@vireshk-i7>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 16:44:51 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't restrict kthread to
related_cpus unnecessarily"
On 08-05-18, 12:00, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Right, I see your point. Now, with the current implementation, why should
> we randomly force a CPU to manage the kthread of another ? IIUC deadline
> should assign the kthreads to CPUs depending on the state of the system
> when the task is created. So, from one boot to another, you could
> theoretically end up with varying configurations, and varying power/perf
> numbers.
Yeah, if it is fixed at boot then there is no good reason to push it
to any other CPU. I agree.
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists