[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36cd651f-40d5-91b7-c638-37e65a55fc74@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 08:50:09 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>,
Jian-Min <Jian-Min.Liu@...iatek.com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] sched/pelt: Introduce PELT multiplier
On 06/09/2022 07:49, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Sept 2022 at 09:54, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/08/2022 12:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 12:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:08:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 07:54:50AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>>>> From: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
[...]
>> We still need rq_clock_task_mult(rq), i.e. `rq->clock_task_mult` in
>> _update_idle_rq_clock_pelt() though.
>
> Why ? If the mult is defined at boot we just have to use
> "rq_clock_task(rq) << mult" instead of rq_clock_task(rq) when updating
> clock_pelt
Makes sense! Agreed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists