From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq/schedutil: Cleanup, document and fix iowait boost Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 12:58:28 +0200 Message-ID: <20180411105828.GL4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180410155931.31973-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180410193708.GE4043@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20180411104445.GM14248@e110439-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180411104445.GM14248@e110439-lin> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick Bellasi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:44:45AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > - sugov_set_iowait_boost: is now in charge only to set/increase the IO > > > wait boost, every time a task wakes up from an IO wait. > > > > > > - sugov_iowait_boost: is now in charge to reset/reduce the IO wait > > > boost, every time a sugov update is triggered, as well as > > > to (eventually) enforce the currently required IO boost value. > > > > I'm not sold on those function names; feels like we can do better, > > although I'm struggling to come up with anything sensible just now. > > What about something like: > > sugov_iowait_init() > since here we are mainly initializing the iowait boost > > sugov_iowait_boost() > since here we are mainly applying the proper boost to each cpu > > Although they are not really so different... How about: sugov_iowait_boost() -- does the actual impulse/boost sugov_iowait_apply() -- applies the boost state ?