Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 16:04:27 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't restrict kthread to
 related_cpus unnecessarily"
Message-ID: <20180508103427.w2rq3vz3f66y4cxh@vireshk-i7>
References: <20180508073340.13114-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180508082242.bre6sjfvefhz6xc3@vireshk-i7>
 <8cf21b1a-ca6e-fed7-43c5-94c66ff5986b@arm.com>
 <20180508094526.ajyjrwytguhv4xpe@vireshk-i7>
 <20180508100227.GB3752@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180508100227.GB3752@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323-120-3dd1ac
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08-05-18, 11:02, Quentin Perret wrote:
> The sugov kthreads are DL tasks so they're not impacted by EAS. But even
> if you take EAS out of the picture, those kthreads are assigned to a
> "random" CPU at boot time and stay there forever (because that's how DL
> works). Is this what we want ?

Okay, I didn't knew that DL threads don't migrate at all. I don't
think that's what we want then specially for big LITTLE platforms. But
for the rest, I don't know. Take example of Qcom krait. Each CPU has a
separate policy, why shouldn't we allow other CPUs to run the kthread?

> Looking at the commit you mention below it seems that you did the
> testing on the old hikey which has only one cpufreq policy. Did you try
> on other platforms as well ?

Yeah, the testing wasn't performance oriented but rather corner case
oriented and it made sense to allow other CPUs to go update the freq
for remote CPUs. And that's true for big LITTLE as well, the only
question here is which CPUs we want the thread to run on.

-- 
viresh