[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190507141048.d45ia7qfytnfdhqc@queper01-lin>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 15:10:50 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] sched/dl: Capacity-aware migrations
On Monday 06 May 2019 at 06:48:32 (+0200), Luca Abeni wrote:
> static inline unsigned long cpu_bw_dl(struct rq *rq)
> {
> - return (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT;
> + unsigned long res;
> +
> + res = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT;
> +
> + return (res << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) /
> + arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, rq->cpu);
The only user of cpu_bw_dl() is schedutil right ? If yes, we probably
don't want to scale things here -- schedutil already does this I
believe.
Thanks,
Quentin
> }
>
> static inline unsigned long cpu_util_dl(struct rq *rq)
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists