On 06-03-17, 13:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 04-03-17, 01:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> So one idea is that if SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL is set in flags, we don't even > >> need to start the loop which is quite a cost to simply notice that there's > >> nothing to do. > > > > Hmm. Isn't the probability of this flag being set, same for all CPUs in the > > policy? > > No, I don't think so.
Why do you think so? I thought all CPU in the policy can have the RT/DL flag set and the probability of all of them is just the same. > So to the point, the code was written this way on purpose and not just > by accident as your changelog suggests and I didn't wanted to convey that really and I knew that it was written on purpose. > if you want to change it, you need numbers. What kind of numbers can we get for such a change ? I tried to take the running average of the time it takes to execute this routine over 10000 samples, but it varies a lot even with the same build. Any tests like hackbench, etc wouldn't be of any help as well. -- viresh
