[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180802123315.GV2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:33:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: skannan@...eaurora.org
Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
chris.redpath@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
valentin.schneider@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
thara.gopinath@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
tkjos@...gle.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, smuckle@...gle.com,
adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com, pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, edubezval@...il.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, currojerez@...eup.net,
javi.merino@...nel.org, linux-pm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] sched/cpufreq: Refactor the utilization
aggregation method
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:35:27PM -0700, skannan@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-07-24 05:25, Quentin Perret wrote:
> If it's going to be a different aggregation from what's done for frequency
> guidance, I don't see the point of having this inside schedutil. Why not
> keep it inside the scheduler files? Also, it seems weird to use a governor's
> code when it might not actually be in use. What if someone is using
> ondemand, conservative, performance, etc?
EAS hard relies on schedutil -- I suppose we need a check for that
somewhere and maybe some infrastructure to pin the cpufreq governor.
We're simply not going to support it for anything else.
> > +enum schedutil_type {
> > + frequency_util,
> > + energy_util,
> > +};
>
> Please don't use lower case for enums. It's extremely confusing.
How is that confusing?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists