From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 16:59:22 +0530 Message-ID: <20171213112922.GG3322@vireshk-i7> References: <17ff0b5d83a1275a98f0d1b87daf275f3e964af3.1513158452.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20171213112639.GD30887@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171213112639.GD30887@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Juri Lelli Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, tkjos@android.com, joelaf@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 13-12-17, 12:26, Juri Lelli wrote: > This flag doesn't do much, does it? I mean RT/DL/IOWAIT are used to bump > up frequency, while you are adding CFS for the sake of simmetry, right? > And with my patches DL will hopefully soon be in the same situation. > If my understanding is correct, maybe add a comment? Symmetry yes, plus it can be useful to know when there is nothing queued on the CPU, i.e. no flags are set. Then the CPU is probably going into idle and we may want to do some tricky stuff there later on. -- viresh