[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e845146-8a31-407c-a5ee-e2e32f1655e5@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 14:43:55 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
<rafael@...nel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc: 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>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched: Consolidate cpufreq updates
On 12/05/2024 21:00, Qais Yousef wrote:
[...]
> @@ -4682,7 +4659,7 @@ static void attach_entity_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *s
>
> add_tg_cfs_propagate(cfs_rq, se->avg.load_sum);
>
> - cfs_rq_util_change(cfs_rq, 0);
> + cpufreq_update_util(rq_of(cfs_rq), 0);
Isn't this slighlty different now?
before:
if (&rq->cfs == cfs_rq) {
cpufreq_update_util(rq, ....)
}
now:
cpufreq_update_util(rq_of(cfs_rq), ...)
You should get way more updates from attach/detach now.
>
> trace_pelt_cfs_tp(cfs_rq);
> }
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists