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:   Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:18:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc:     rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com,
        patrick.bellasi@arm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, thara.gopinath@linaro.org,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tkjos@google.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
        smuckle@google.com, adharmap@codeaurora.org,
        skannan@codeaurora.org, pkondeti@codeaurora.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, edubezval@gmail.com,
        srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, currojerez@riseup.net,
        javi.merino@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 12/14] sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on
 task wake-up
Message-ID: <20181004121807.GO19272@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180912091309.7551-1-quentin.perret@arm.com>
 <20180912091309.7551-13-quentin.perret@arm.com>
 <20181004094412.GD19252@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20181004102722.izp7y42cvayq4pqg@queper01-lin>
 <20181004104107.GN19272@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20181004105507.ordjpa3hsb6zoelc@queper01-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181004105507.ordjpa3hsb6zoelc@queper01-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:55:09AM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 04 Oct 2018 at 12:41:07 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Not sure, see what it looks like ;-) My main concern here was to get rid
> > of that giant blob in select_task_rq_fair().
> 
> OK, got it. I'll probably just move the checks into the function and
> merge that large comment into the already massive comment above
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() or something. We'll see :-)
> 
> And do you actually care about the function name ? We've been using
> find_energy_efficient_cpu() for some time in Android now, so that's just
> slightly easier for us if that can be re-used. Not a big deal either,
> though.

Sure, that's fine I suppose.