[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191105211446.GA25349@e108754-lin>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:15:24 +0000
From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
To: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
rui.zhang@...el.com, edubezval@...il.com, qperret@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
javi.merino@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 2/6] sched/fair: Add infrastructure to store and
update instantaneous thermal pressure
On Tuesday 05 Nov 2019 at 16:02:00 (-0500), Thara Gopinath wrote:
> On 11/05/2019 03:21 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > Hi Thara,
> >
> > On Tuesday 05 Nov 2019 at 13:49:42 (-0500), Thara Gopinath wrote:
> > [...]
> >> +static void trigger_thermal_pressure_average(struct rq *rq)
> >> +{
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >> + update_thermal_load_avg(rq_clock_task(rq), rq,
> >> + per_cpu(thermal_pressure, cpu_of(rq)));
> >> +#endif
> >> +}
> >
> > Why did you decide to keep trigger_thermal_pressure_average and not
> > call update_thermal_load_avg directly?
> >
> > For !CONFIG_SMP you already have an update_thermal_load_avg function
> > that does nothing, in kernel/sched/pelt.h, so you don't need that
> > ifdef.
> Hi,
>
> Yes you are right. But later with the shift option added, I shift
> rq_clock_task(rq) by the shift. I thought it is better to contain it in
> a function that replicate it in three different places. I can remove the
> CONFIG_SMP in the next version.
You could still keep that in one place if you shift the now argument of
___update_load_sum instead.
To me that trigger_thermal_pressure_average function seems more code
than it's worth for this.
Thanks,
Ionela.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ionela.
> >
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * All the scheduling class methods:
> >> */
> >> --
> >> 2.1.4
> >>
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards
> Thara
Powered by blists - more mailing lists