On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@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.ku...@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> > > Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@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
