Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752900AbdLUKjx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:39:53 -0500
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:56130 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751739AbdLUKju (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:39:50 -0500
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:39:41 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates
Message-ID: <20171221103941.ykehmki7m32r4pyr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20171130114723.29210-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20171220153029.dqrtjbyowhqdl56r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171220154358.663yoodeoxkqghx7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171221091502.GE19815@vireshk-i7>
 <20171221102530.all2hqoyh77mffmf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171221103022.GA8312@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171221103022.GA8312@vireshk-i7>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1227
Lines: 38

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 04:00:22PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-12-17, 11:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:45:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > 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);
> > 
> > This should 'obviously' have been:
> > 
> > 		sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &j_util, *j_max);
> 
> Actually it should be:
> 
>  		sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &j_util, &j_max);

Yes, clearly I cannot type much ;-)

> and this is how it was in the commit I reviewed from your tree. But my query
> still stands, what difference will it make ?
> 
> > > >  		if (j_util * max > j_max * util) {
> > > >  			util = j_util;
> > > >  			max = j_max;
> > > >  		}
> > > > -
> > > > -		sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max);
> 

The difference is that we apply the per-cpu boost on the per-cpu util
value and _then_ find the overall maximum.

Instead of finding the overall maximum and then apply the per-cpu boost
to that.