Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 5 Dec 2022 14:48:30 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Sam Wu <wusamuel@google.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        "Isaac J . Manjarres" <isaacmanjarres@google.com>,
        kernel-team@android.com,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to
 sugov_policy"
Message-ID: <20221205091830.pttdbyts4hujkpq2@vireshk-i7>
References: <20221110195732.1382314-1-wusamuel@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221110195732.1382314-1-wusamuel@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

Lukasz,

On 10-11-22, 19:57, Sam Wu wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 9161d1136d01..1207c78f85c1 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -25,9 +25,6 @@ struct sugov_policy {
>  	unsigned int		next_freq;
>  	unsigned int		cached_raw_freq;
>  
> -	/* max CPU capacity, which is equal for all CPUs in freq. domain */
> -	unsigned long		max;
> -
>  	/* The next fields are only needed if fast switch cannot be used: */
>  	struct			irq_work irq_work;
>  	struct			kthread_work work;
> @@ -51,6 +48,7 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
>  
>  	unsigned long		util;
>  	unsigned long		bw_dl;
> +	unsigned long		max;

IIUC, this part, i.e. moving max to sugov_policy, wasn't the problem
here, right ? Can you send a patch for that at least first, since this
is fully reverted now.

Or it doesn't make sense?

-- 
viresh