Messages in this thread | | | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Date | Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:32:09 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] cpufreq: schedutil: Use idle_calls counter of the remote CPU |
| |
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:47:12AM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> Since the recent remote cpufreq callback work, its possible that a cpufreq >> update is triggered from a remote CPU. For single policies however, the current >> code uses the local CPU when trying to determine if the remote sg_cpu entered >> idle or is busy. This is incorrect. To remedy this, compare with the nohz tick >> idle_calls counter of the remote CPU. >> >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Sweet!
> >> --- >> Just resending this which is cpufreq-related as requested by Rafael rebased >> on linus/master. >> >> The other 2 patches in my last series which can go in independent of this one are: >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115395/ >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115401/ >> I'm still waiting on scheduler maintainers to comment on those. Unfortunately, >> I haven't heard back anything yet since the last repost of those. > > Both of us have been somewhat preoccupied with that whole kaiser/pti > thing the past few weeks.
I understand, thanks for taking time to look at it! Hopefully you're Ok with the second one as well (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115401). And this cap aware one's been pretty beaten to death too: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10113337/ but let me know your objections if any.
> > I have an absolutely stupid backlog :/
I see. :/ I am thinking of spending more time reviewing fwiw and hopefully helping relieve some of that burden. Happy to help in any other way as well so let me/us know how we can help.
thanks,
- Joel
| |