[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc4cecd2-81ea-b6e4-68df-b021d4fa128b@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 12:48:25 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
adharmap@...eaurora.org, pkondeti@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] sched/fair: Kill wake_cap()
On 07/02/2020 11:19, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 06 Feb 2020 at 19:19:57 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
>>
>> Capacity-awareness in the wake-up path previously involved disabling
>> wake_affine in certain scenarios. We have just made select_idle_sibling()
>> capacity-aware, so this isn't needed anymore.
>>
>> Remove wake_cap() entirely.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
>> [Changelog tweaks]
>> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
>
> I wanted to suggest removing the CA code from update_sg_wakeup_stats()
> which is now called only on fork/exec, but I suppose we still want it
> for util_clamp, so n/m.
>
Good point, I hadn't thought about this. As you say we probably want to
keep it since we can fork/exec into a cgroup that has uclamp values already
set up, and that would drive task_fits_capacity().
> Thanks for the series,
Thanks for the review!
> Quentin
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists