[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YA/pYrvvjf8AxPEv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 11:05:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Jon Grimm <Jon.Grimm@....com>,
Nathan Fontenot <Nathan.Fontenot@....com>,
Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@....com>,
Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
Suthikulpanit Suravee <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
Pu Wen <puwen@...on.cn>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Michael Larabel <Michael@...ronix.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86,sched: On AMD EPYC set freq_max = max_boost
in schedutil invariant formula
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:31:40AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> So, should this patch be merged for 5.11 as a stopgap, fix up
> schedutil/cpufreq and then test both AMD and Intel chips reporting the
> correct max non-turbo and max-turbo frequencies? That would give time to
> give some testing in linux-next before merging to reduce the chance
> something else falls out.
Yeah, we should probably do this now. Rafael, you want this or should I
take it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists