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: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 17:29:43 +0530 Message-ID: <20171218115943.GL19815@vireshk-i7> References: <20456740.6R3DDKEUDv@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171218045945.GG19815@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Linux PM , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 18-12-17, 12:35, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Well, if SCHED_CPUFRREQ_CLEAR means "this CPU is going to enter the > idle loop" really, then it is better to call it > SCHED_CPUFRREQ_ENTER_IDLE, for example. > > SCHED_CPUFRREQ_CLEAR meaning basically "you should clear these flags > now" doesn't seem to convey any information to whoever doesn't > squirrel the flags in the first place. Right, but when all the flags are cleared, then we can infer that we are going to idle in the most probable case. Anyway, I will implement RT and DL clear flags as you suggested in the next version. -- viresh