[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180514163314.GG30654@e110439-lin>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 17:33:14 +0100
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/cpufreq: always consider blocked FAIR
utilization
On 14-May 11:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 11 May 2018 at 11:12, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Do we need a Fixes tag and Cc stable ?
> >
> > Mmm... no sure, I would say that's not a fix.
> >
> > As I say in the changelog above, 8f111bc357aa was doing the correct
> > thing but, since the recent Vincent's commit 31e77c93e432, this is an
> > update worth to have, since now we can trust the decay of blocked
> > utilization.
> >
> > Regarding stable, well... if Vincent patches are not going to be
> > considered for stable, then we should not consider this too, do we?
>
> commit 31e77c93e432 is not for stable so this patch should not go too
Right, will not add stable in cc.
Thanks
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists