From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Muckle Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/7] cpufreq / sched: Make schedutil access utilization data directly Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:28:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20160802142843.GF9332@graphite.smuckle.net> References: <3752826.3sXAQIvcIA@vostro.rjw.lan> <9887668.FEg7fVruKQ@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160801192850.GX19455@graphite.smuckle.net> <5472075.XX6bKsbQPI@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160802103817.GZ22472@e106622-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160802103817.GZ22472@e106622-lin> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Juri Lelli Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Steve Muckle , Linux PM list , Peter Zijlstra , Srinivas Pandruvada , Viresh Kumar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > Anyway one way that my patch differed was that I had used the flags > > > field to keep the behavior the same for both RT and DL. > > Do you mean "go to max" policy for both, until proper policies will be > implemented in the future? Yep. > > That happens > > > later on in this series for RT but the DL policy is modified as above. > > > Can the DL policy be left as-is and discussed/modified in a separate > > > series? > > Not that we want to start discussing this point now, if we postpone the > change for later, but I just wanted to point out a difference w.r.t. > what the schedfreq thing was doing: it used to sum contributions from > the different classes, instead of taking the max. We probably never > really discussed on the list what is the right thing to do, though. Yeah I figured that was worth deferring into its own patchset/thread. cheers, Steve