Hi, On 30/11/17 11:47, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > Currently the utilization of the FAIR class is collected before locking > the policy. Although that should not be a big issue for most cases, we > also don't really know how much latency there can be between the > utilization reading and its usage. > > Let's get the FAIR utilization right before its usage to be better in > sync with the current status of a CPU. > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bell...@arm.com> > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@redhat.com> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux...@vger.kernel.org > > --- > Changes from v2: > - rebased on v4.15-rc1 > > Change-Id: I9291a560bcad7db76894e3f0fcdb917511d0479e > --- > kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > index 448f49de5335..40521d59630b 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > @@ -351,10 +351,9 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data > *hook, u64 time, > unsigned int next_f; > bool rt_mode; > > - sugov_get_util(&util, &max, sg_cpu->cpu); > - > raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock); > > + sugov_get_util(&util, &max, sg_cpu->cpu); > sg_cpu->util = util; > sg_cpu->max = max;
Patch looks good. Reviewed-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@redhat.com> However, not sure $SUBJECT is really in sync with what the patch does? CFS gets "used" before and after the patch... last paragraph of the changelog looks more like it. :) Best, Juri
