Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Jun 2019 15:47:16 +0100 | From | Patrick Bellasi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 11/16] sched/fair: uclamp: Add uclamp support to energy_compute() |
| |
On 21-Jun 16:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:42:12AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h > > index ce2da8b9ff8c..f81e8930ff19 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h > > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h > > @@ -2322,7 +2322,6 @@ static inline unsigned long capacity_orig_of(int cpu) > > } > > #endif > > > > -#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL > > /** > > * enum schedutil_type - CPU utilization type > > * @FREQUENCY_UTIL: Utilization used to select frequency > > @@ -2338,15 +2337,11 @@ enum schedutil_type { > > ENERGY_UTIL, > > }; > > > > -unsigned long schedutil_freq_util(int cpu, unsigned long util_cfs, > > - unsigned long max, enum schedutil_type type); > > - > > -static inline unsigned long schedutil_energy_util(int cpu, unsigned long cfs) > > -{ > > - unsigned long max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu); > > That conflicts with the patch I have removing that NULL argument, fixed > it up.
Ok, I notice only know you have this:
commit 119fd437f412 ("sched/topology: Remove unused sd param from arch_scale_cpu_capacity()")
from Vincent on your queue. :/
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL > > > > - return schedutil_freq_util(cpu, cfs, max, ENERGY_UTIL); > > -} > > +unsigned long schedutil_cpu_util(int cpu, unsigned long util_cfs, > > + unsigned long max, enum schedutil_type type, > > + struct task_struct *p); > > > > static inline unsigned long cpu_bw_dl(struct rq *rq) > > { > > @@ -2375,11 +2370,8 @@ static inline unsigned long cpu_util_rt(struct rq *rq) > > return READ_ONCE(rq->avg_rt.util_avg); > > } > > #else /* CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL */ > > -static inline unsigned long schedutil_energy_util(int cpu, unsigned long cfs) > > -{ > > - return cfs; > > -} > > -#endif > > +#define schedutil_cpu_util(cpu, util_cfs, max, type, p) 0 > > Was there a good reason for this to be a macro and not an inline > function?
Mmm... not really, apart perhaps saving some lines.
I notice sometimes we use macros (e.g. perf_domain_span), but it's certainly not the most common pattern.
> I've changed it, if it explodes in 0day, it's all my fault ;-)
Sure, I guess if 0day explodes will not be for that change. :)
-- #include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
| |