Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:00:22 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates |
| |
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);
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);
-- viresh
| |