From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752228AbdLUJPL (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:15:11 -0500
Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:34282 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751667AbdLUJPF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 21 Dec 2017 04:15:05 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotopIALjeBNDfAbniQhVwFq/bJzHeAvFdOdR57dmt5d+g5evxW05AaePG4k2gIvQhuHRMYm4w==
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:45:02 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates
Message-ID: <20171221091502.GE19815@vireshk-i7>
References: <20171130114723.29210-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20171220153029.dqrtjbyowhqdl56r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171220154358.663yoodeoxkqghx7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171220154358.663yoodeoxkqghx7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 20-12-17, 16:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The below makes more sense to me too; hmm?
> 
> @@ -335,12 +335,11 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shar
>  
>  		j_max = j_sg_cpu->max;
>  		j_util = sugov_aggregate_util(j_sg_cpu);
> +		sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max);
>  		if (j_util * max > j_max * util) {
>  			util = j_util;
>  			max = j_max;
>  		}
> -
> -		sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max);

Sorry if I am being a fool here, I had 3 different interpretations of
the results after this change in the last 15 minutes. It was confusing
for somehow..

Why do you think above change matters ? I think nothing changed after
this diff at all.

We have three different values here:

util/max, j_util/j_max, and j_boost_util/j_boost_max.

And we are trying to find the max among them and changing the order of
comparisons doesn't change anything.

Am I reading the code correctly ?

-- 
viresh