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:   Tue, 10 Jan 2023 16:44:34 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
        Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>,
        Hank <han.lin@mediatek.com>,
        Jonathan JMChen <Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Traverse cpufreq policies to detect
 capacity inversion
Message-ID: <20230110164434.pil27wzos45jcx3c@airbuntu>
References: <20221208140526.vvmjxlz6akgqyoma@airbuntu>
 <20221209164739.GA24368@vingu-book>
 <20221212184317.sntxy3h6k44oz4mo@airbuntu>
 <CAKfTPtBX0ugM87CEjAXUbVhnTZTwAAnjXu2fRfc6ezHE8=aC6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221220123254.to6tzznxloxq725q@airbuntu>
 <20221220135034.GA12359@vingu-book>
 <20221223115845.3azncwqlyo4zx262@airbuntu>
 <CAKfTPtCLE8DSa_kV4NgLqhGF--VkOV2x+bf_6NRL76NFnwmq2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230109164047.c4xktivav5jqped5@airbuntu>
 <CAKfTPtB2PNR7k_TEkjPCHs-ssOX3qYjacc_VbyMkGMyxA5gp9w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB2PNR7k_TEkjPCHs-ssOX3qYjacc_VbyMkGMyxA5gp9w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 01/10/23 17:38, Vincent Guittot wrote:

[...]

> > Patch 1 of this series addresses this already :-)
> 
> Ah yes.
> 
> >
> > Talking about this serries; I'm confused what's the plan for patch 2 now?
> >
> > My understanding was Peter should pick 1 and 2 as fixes until we nail this
> > patch out.
> 
> yes patch 1 and 2 should be merged to fix mainline implementation. As
> discussed offline, the end goal remains to remove any kind of external
> for loop in load balance

Good. I'll spin v3 so it'd be easier for Peter/Ingo to pick them up.
Meanwhile I'll be testing and continuing reviewing your patch.


Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef