[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221205091830.pttdbyts4hujkpq2@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 14:48:30 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Sam Wu <wusamuel@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
"Isaac J . Manjarres" <isaacmanjarres@...gle.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to
sugov_policy"
Lukasz,
On 10-11-22, 19:57, Sam Wu wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 9161d1136d01..1207c78f85c1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -25,9 +25,6 @@ struct sugov_policy {
> unsigned int next_freq;
> unsigned int cached_raw_freq;
>
> - /* max CPU capacity, which is equal for all CPUs in freq. domain */
> - unsigned long max;
> -
> /* The next fields are only needed if fast switch cannot be used: */
> struct irq_work irq_work;
> struct kthread_work work;
> @@ -51,6 +48,7 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
>
> unsigned long util;
> unsigned long bw_dl;
> + unsigned long max;
IIUC, this part, i.e. moving max to sugov_policy, wasn't the problem
here, right ? Can you send a patch for that at least first, since this
is fully reverted now.
Or it doesn't make sense?
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists