Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756109AbdGKRSm (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:18:42 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47492 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753681AbdGKRSl (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:18:41 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:18:34 +0100 From: Juri Lelli To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@redhat.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, luca.abeni@santannapisa.it, claudio@evidence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, bristot@redhat.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, tkjos@android.com, joelaf@google.com, andresoportus@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com, Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J . Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 5/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all CPUs when deciding next freq Message-ID: <20170711171834.7kldjsjg7utsc2jl@e106622-lin> References: <20170705085905.6558-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20170705085905.6558-6-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20170711161731.plbzv42yv7l66fwh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170711161731.plbzv42yv7l66fwh@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 840 Lines: 30 On 11/07/17 18:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:59:02AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > delta_ns = time - j_sg_cpu->last_update; > > if (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC) { > > j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost = 0; > > - continue; > > + j_sg_cpu->util_cfs = 0; > > this is slighly confusing. Is this because we might not 'continue' with > the new code? > This is because, after TICK_NSEC, we only want to discard CFS contribution and (yes) continue (so don't take into account j_sg_cpu contribution) if DEADLINE contribution is zero as well. > > + if (j_sg_cpu->util_dl == 0) > > + continue; > > } > > + With this change we might not continue if some DEADLINE utilization is present for j_sg_cpu. > > if (j_sg_cpu->flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT) > > return policy->cpuinfo.max_freq; > > > > -- > > 2.11.0 > >