MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <582670FD.7080203@codeaurora.org>
References: <cover.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <85bf45982709e06f7f42e1b8f8315945e9d9b6d0.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0jODn1gJtTtpTigA=7QwK04wzdFopr-R6GeoSchqgpgiQ@mail.gmail.com> <582670FD.7080203@codeaurora.org>
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:57:12 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohpokXHRBr78st=w=JF-dqLw3gVvZgGnAJ0-X-bZvVXQEPOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: schedutil: move slow path from workqueue to
 SCHED_FIFO task
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 585
Lines: 15

On 12 November 2016 at 07:01, Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Hold on a sec. I thought during LPC someone (Peter?) made a point that when
> RT thread run, we should bump the frequency to max?

I wasn't there but AFAIU, this is the case we have currently for the schedutil
governor. And we (mobile world, Linaro) want to change that it doesn't work
that well for us. So perhaps it is just the opposite of what you stated.

> So, schedutil is going
> to trigger schedutil to bump up the frequency to max, right?

How is that question related to this patch ?

--
viresh