LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Linux PM <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"
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 10:25:04 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180509045504.nmvrobtcdy7tfz7r@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iN0msbi=ad34nS8eVfGGS1UD-qUeHPeAvq=yW3-4HKCQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 08-05-18, 22:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Because that makes things more complex and harder to debug in general.
> 
> What's the exact reason why non-policy CPUs should ever run the sugov
> kthread for the given policy?

The only benefit was to let the scheduler run the kthread on the best
CPU (according to the scheduler), which may help reducing the delay in
running the kthread. But given the way deadline scheduler works, I
don't see a reason why this should be done anymore.

-- 
viresh

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-09  4:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-08  7:33 Dietmar Eggemann
2018-05-08  8:22 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08  9:09   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-05-08  9:42     ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-13  5:19       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-17 19:10         ` Saravana Kannan
2018-05-17 19:13           ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-08  9:45     ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08 10:02       ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-08 10:34         ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08 11:00           ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-08 11:14             ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08 11:24               ` Quentin Perret
2018-05-08 12:20                 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-08 20:36           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  4:55             ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2018-05-08 10:36       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2018-05-08 10:53         ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08 12:17           ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-09  4:55 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-17 10:32   ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180509045504.nmvrobtcdy7tfz7r@vireshk-i7 \
    --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don'\''t restrict kthread to related_cpus unnecessarily"' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).