[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191021061911.GA3550@darkstar>
Date:   Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:19:11 +0100
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: util_est: fast ramp-up EWMA on utilization
 increases
Hi Peter,
On 14-Oct 16:52, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> The energy aware schedutil patches remimded me this was still pending.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > Hi Peter, Vincent,
> > is there anything different I can do on this?
> 
> I think both Vincent and me are basically fine with the patch, it was
> the Changelog/explanation for it that sat uneasy.
> 
> Specifically I think the 'confusion' around the PELT invariance stuff
> doesn't help.
> 
> I think that if you present it simply as making util_est directly follow
> upward motion and only decay on downward -- and the rationale for it --
> then it should be fine.
Ok, I'll update the commit message to remove the PELT related
ambiguity and post a new version soon.
Cheers,
Patrick
-- 
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
