On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 09:47:12AM -0800, Joel Fernandes wrote:
Since the recent remote cpufreq callback work, its possible that a cpufreq update is triggered from a remote CPU. For single policies however, the current code uses the local CPU when trying to determine if the remote sg_cpu entered idle or is busy. This is incorrect. To remedy this, compare with the nohz tick idle_calls counter of the remote CPU.
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes joelaf@google.com
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) peterz@infradead.org
Sweet!
Just resending this which is cpufreq-related as requested by Rafael rebased on linus/master.
The other 2 patches in my last series which can go in independent of this one are: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115395/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115401/ I'm still waiting on scheduler maintainers to comment on those. Unfortunately, I haven't heard back anything yet since the last repost of those.
Both of us have been somewhat preoccupied with that whole kaiser/pti thing the past few weeks.
I understand, thanks for taking time to look at it! Hopefully you're Ok with the second one as well (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10115401). And this cap aware one's been pretty beaten to death too: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10113337/ but let me know your objections if any.
I have an absolutely stupid backlog :/
I see. :/ I am thinking of spending more time reviewing fwiw and hopefully helping relieve some of that burden. Happy to help in any other way as well so let me/us know how we can help.
thanks,
- Joel