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 S938436AbdLSDaH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:30:07 -0500
Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com ([209.85.223.194]:39725 "EHLO
        mail-io0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932484AbdLSDaF (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 18 Dec 2017 22:30:05 -0500
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosraa7B0pjcp8kCbn3B+hj8skdhmGwbvfv7peIREkoYw3ayxhMx2iDAlUZubdl6MHgnf/Tmra/J6au4P4N8GHA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171219032647.GO19815@vireshk-i7>
References: <CAJZ5v0jLQ7v5u+OUpK0gSAHvR90K=agvUSuFNzJXMnk+YkKyzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKohpomHfV=2CQj0_D=PsoMvbCu5v_ensJqaZmxUURzr27+yhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20456740.6R3DDKEUDv@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171218045945.GG19815@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0h+bvbe6DbMn+9DXbbctKG4POTsvEf_eL8R0nLajKXBTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171218115943.GL19815@vireshk-i7> <20171218121453.GH19821@e110439-lin>
 <20171219031237.GM19815@vireshk-i7> <CAJWu+ooGRedM_w6xBwhb+ype0SMmM8w-uEjjpzaTWmp-GueZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20171219032217.GN19815@vireshk-i7> <20171219032647.GO19815@vireshk-i7>
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:30:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJWu+oo+_30hFy16Fnu=dmJV3u-8_EVZw1j2pBC5PbEMBrnWUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization
 update flags
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        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>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 19-12-17, 08:52, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 18-12-17, 19:18, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> > Hi Viresh,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > > On 18-12-17, 12:14, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>> > >> For example, swithing from:
>> > >>
>> > >>  - void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
>> > >>  -              unsigned int flags))
>> > >>  + void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
>> > >>  +              unsigned int flags, bool set))
>> > >>
>> > >> Where the additional boolean is actually used to define which
>> > >> operation we wanna perform on the flags?
>> > >
>> > > The code will eventually have the same complexity or ugliness in both
>> > > the cases. I would like to start with another flag for now and see if
>> > > people prefer another parameter.
>> >
>> > Though I think that will solve Rafael's concern of polluting the flags
>> > for something schedutil specific. I also feel adding extra callback
>> > parameter is cleaner than 2 new clear flags.
>>
>> Okay, I will then wait for Rafael to come online and comment on what
>> he would prefer before posting.
>
> I thought about it once more. If we decide eventually to add another
> parameter, then why isn't the approach that this patch takes better
> than that? i.e. Use the 31st bit of flags for clear bit ? We can
> remove setting/clearing flags for CFS, that's it.

Yes that's clean to me but then as Rafael said, the use of this flag
will be too specific for schedutil-only sg_cpu->flags clearing purpose
right?

If adding the single flag is OK in the grand cpufreq scheme of things,
then that's fine with me.

Thanks,

- Joel