[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180809153059.3cfw45qibcv5qqqk@darkstar>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:30:59 +0100
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: 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>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
"Cc: Steve Muckle" <smuckle@...gle.com>, surenb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/14] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping
for FAIR tasks
On 08-Aug 15:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
Hi VIncent,
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 at 18:40, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
[...]
> > +static inline unsigned int uclamp_util(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int util)
>
> using struct *rq rq instead of cpu as parameter would align
> uclamp_util() interface with other cpu_util_*() interface and remove
> some cpu_of(rq) and cpu_rq(cpu)
Right, I've tired to keep consistency within the "uclamp_*" APIs...
but what you suggests makes also sense and I've also already
switched some other APIs to use *rq.
I'll look into better aligning these APIs for the next posting.
Cheers Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists