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 <[email protected]> > Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <[email protected]> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > Cc: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > > --- > 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 <[email protected]> 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
