From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752639AbdLUKoA (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:44:00 -0500 Received: from mail-pl0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]:35385 "EHLO mail-pl0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753264AbdLUKnV (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Dec 2017 05:43:21 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBott+tghUYaGwXQQHRDw70r7NcMW0xefFrWled9xThBdHySEj+GhcwTTNvVdMzTxPKVVu1/5og== Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:13:17 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Patrick Bellasi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates Message-ID: <20171221104317.GB8312@vireshk-i7> References: <20171130114723.29210-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20171220153029.dqrtjbyowhqdl56r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171220154358.663yoodeoxkqghx7@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171221091502.GE19815@vireshk-i7> <20171221102530.all2hqoyh77mffmf@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20171221103022.GA8312@vireshk-i7> <20171221103941.ykehmki7m32r4pyr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171221103941.ykehmki7m32r4pyr@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 21-12-17, 11:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > The difference is that we apply the per-cpu boost on the per-cpu util > value and _then_ find the overall maximum. > > Instead of finding the overall maximum and then apply the per-cpu boost > to that. Okay, so it is just about the right sequencing of these comparisons but the outcome will still be same, i.e. max of the 3 util/max values. Thanks. -- viresh