From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] sched/cpufreq: Refactor the utilization aggregation method Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:33:15 +0200 Message-ID: <20180802123315.GV2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20180724122521.22109-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20180724122521.22109-11-quentin.perret@arm.com> <331552975e858911db66bc78c2c8e720@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <331552975e858911db66bc78c2c8e720@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: Quentin Perret , rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, thara.gopinath@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tkjos@google.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, smuckle@google.com, adharmap@quicinc.com, skannan@quicinc.com, pkondeti@codeaurora.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, edubezval@gmail.com, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, currojerez@riseup.net, javi.merino@kernel.org, linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 12:35:27PM -0700, skannan@codeaurora.org wrote: > On 2018-07-24 05:25, Quentin Perret wrote: > If it's going to be a different aggregation from what's done for frequency > guidance, I don't see the point of having this inside schedutil. Why not > keep it inside the scheduler files? Also, it seems weird to use a governor's > code when it might not actually be in use. What if someone is using > ondemand, conservative, performance, etc? EAS hard relies on schedutil -- I suppose we need a check for that somewhere and maybe some infrastructure to pin the cpufreq governor. We're simply not going to support it for anything else. > > +enum schedutil_type { > > + frequency_util, > > + energy_util, > > +}; > > Please don't use lower case for enums. It's extremely confusing. How is that confusing?