From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197ABC54EBC for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 16:44:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231183AbjAJQou (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2023 11:44:50 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57300 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233242AbjAJQon (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jan 2023 11:44:43 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x336.google.com (mail-wm1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::336]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7888C8B76C for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:44:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wm1-x336.google.com with SMTP id m3so9287773wmq.0 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:44:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=layalina-io.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cNH7SkNyOF9UgtR2y2rr38fSNVRaCWW0LTtvrIvd3Ak=; b=BJ8wnF/1uNfgTvB8CDbsjWlQQCuUw/1y4wKuD0GdWgurRWenizFSsrThziYW2qSItC /7V3M7j1wT38EvINpcktMW7gO1RJx+UJ2WPIcnmfpvgs1coTrtLQXwZkfl4yba5InBCu 7qNPewzCM4SRFFiA87IMFd6zOXF2ga3RgtdThVFY6us16aOQHPQleGVY7RDrUzU+2sEn VXp7kDiU9G28hA+rPhH1My3zRLBrP6iON77YgZTm2jjGFjfpoShrrCSH9OeXN1911W5T qmTPG0eeyKZD8p2yDPYHSJP72+AuAa8Hhcvn8ZZe5m0gVnh+yGiebYsKbu+x6EoAlHRQ Ke/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=cNH7SkNyOF9UgtR2y2rr38fSNVRaCWW0LTtvrIvd3Ak=; b=GUHKCK15UuPqVTtoZoGevsK1GAg1jY3z0LvH28G5Xr49eWhUT0gVXHRHevXGC8fLtN buXtO4+toqSXQ7jEioY8AZJFdtXxx8oNt4J45LDW/aNDM5kz89oCY1hVNxVRyL2z50rC fYVRPEDBeJjfVN5b9Bl9p9R18sIGCKDZAmyK61yL80z6Ie//Fjz+DCB3IeEY3n0byhbV boBB8uxM7rsFPBIRkRKhNsqQaNHSuZiGrsRhbEb/FuVpd1fkjUQx23yeMdViOtvM3tvM nJGuiw97NE8PF9PADDV398t378fYw1XR9PSDkJTBcExsr1ElNipQP43nuaiZVbit1Zw1 013Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krUiD31Pm4qaZBlEUfWFpSasoLLtcOht/Gc1zRPYQOztqZBczsk /+FvGYkOGOWXJIfx66Dt+50wfg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXt7JRF4BvY/xXUFRS/HeVJx2pg5Y1/kInONMlsasfmps9CcTpJzlNvR9Xkip/DQYD90oexvLg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4d25:b0:3d2:27ba:dde0 with SMTP id u37-20020a05600c4d2500b003d227badde0mr50510690wmp.33.1673369076054; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:44:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from airbuntu ([104.132.45.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k9-20020a5d6d49000000b002bc8130cca7sm3599894wri.23.2023.01.10.08.44.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Jan 2023 08:44:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 16:44:34 +0000 From: Qais Yousef To: Vincent Guittot Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Dietmar Eggemann , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lukasz Luba , Wei Wang , Xuewen Yan , Hank , Jonathan JMChen Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Traverse cpufreq policies to detect capacity inversion Message-ID: <20230110164434.pil27wzos45jcx3c@airbuntu> References: <20221208140526.vvmjxlz6akgqyoma@airbuntu> <20221209164739.GA24368@vingu-book> <20221212184317.sntxy3h6k44oz4mo@airbuntu> <20221220123254.to6tzznxloxq725q@airbuntu> <20221220135034.GA12359@vingu-book> <20221223115845.3azncwqlyo4zx262@airbuntu> <20230109164047.c4xktivav5jqped5@airbuntu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 01/10/23 17:38, Vincent Guittot wrote: [...] > > Patch 1 of this series addresses this already :-) > > Ah yes. > > > > > Talking about this serries; I'm confused what's the plan for patch 2 now? > > > > My understanding was Peter should pick 1 and 2 as fixes until we nail this > > patch out. > > yes patch 1 and 2 should be merged to fix mainline implementation. As > discussed offline, the end goal remains to remove any kind of external > for loop in load balance Good. I'll spin v3 so it'd be easier for Peter/Ingo to pick them up. Meanwhile I'll be testing and continuing reviewing your patch. Thanks! -- Qais Yousef