[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191004114834.GE19463@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 13:48:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...rret.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86,sched: Add support for frequency invariance
On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 07:53:49PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 2:15:37 PM CEST Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 12:27:52PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > + if (smp_processor_id() != 0)
> > > > + return;
> Well, but the smp_processor_id() check has nothing to do with whether or not
> this is "core" or "atom" or something else, for example.
It is dodgy to begin with, it hard assumes we boot on cpu-0. A
'initialized' state would probably be better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists