Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752228AbdLUJPL (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:15:11 -0500 Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:34282 "EHLO mail-pf0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751667AbdLUJPF (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:15:05 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotopIALjeBNDfAbniQhVwFq/bJzHeAvFdOdR57dmt5d+g5evxW05AaePG4k2gIvQhuHRMYm4w== Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:45:02 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Patrick Bellasi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates Message-ID: <20171221091502.GE19815@vireshk-i7> References: <20171130114723.29210-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20171220153029.dqrtjbyowhqdl56r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171220154358.663yoodeoxkqghx7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171220154358.663yoodeoxkqghx7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 914 Lines: 33 On 20-12-17, 16:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > The below makes more sense to me too; hmm? > > @@ -335,12 +335,11 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shar > > j_max = j_sg_cpu->max; > j_util = sugov_aggregate_util(j_sg_cpu); > + sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max); > if (j_util * max > j_max * util) { > util = j_util; > max = j_max; > } > - > - sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max); Sorry if I am being a fool here, I had 3 different interpretations of the results after this change in the last 15 minutes. It was confusing for somehow.. Why do you think above change matters ? I think nothing changed after this diff at all. We have three different values here: util/max, j_util/j_max, and j_boost_util/j_boost_max. And we are trying to find the max among them and changing the order of comparisons doesn't change anything. Am I reading the code correctly ? -- viresh