From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932100AbeEHLYd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 8 May 2018 07:24:33 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56690 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1754642AbeEHLYc (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 8 May 2018 07:24:32 -0400
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 12:24:25 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't restrict kthread to
 related_cpus unnecessarily"
Message-ID: <20180508112424.GA463@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20180508073340.13114-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20180508082242.bre6sjfvefhz6xc3@vireshk-i7>
 <8cf21b1a-ca6e-fed7-43c5-94c66ff5986b@arm.com>
 <20180508094526.ajyjrwytguhv4xpe@vireshk-i7>
 <20180508100227.GB3752@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20180508103427.w2rq3vz3f66y4cxh@vireshk-i7>
 <20180508110003.GC3752@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20180508111451.rmoi2rk3md6lhbvl@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180508111451.rmoi2rk3md6lhbvl@vireshk-i7>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tuesday 08 May 2018 at 16:44:51 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 08-05-18, 12:00, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Right, I see your point. Now, with the current implementation, why should
> > we randomly force a CPU to manage the kthread of another ? IIUC deadline
> > should assign the kthreads to CPUs depending on the state of the system
> > when the task is created. So, from one boot to another, you could
> > theoretically end up with varying configurations, and varying power/perf
> > numbers.
> 
> Yeah, if it is fixed at boot then there is no good reason to push it
> to any other CPU. I agree.
> 

To be fair, I think that DL tasks _can_ migrate, but only in special
conditions (hotplug, or if a DL task wakes up when another DL task is
running and things like that IIRC) but that probably doesn't matter much
for our discussion here.

Thanks,
Quentin