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 S1753962AbcKNKXX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:23:23 -0500
Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:34483 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752315AbcKNKW6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:22:58 -0500
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:52:54 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Robin Randhawa <robin.randhawa@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle.linux@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: schedutil: move slow path from workqueue to
 SCHED_FIFO task
Message-ID: <20161114102254.GD4178@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <85bf45982709e06f7f42e1b8f8315945e9d9b6d0.1478858983.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <d9caf98b-706d-d331-89c4-b75120589da3@sssup.it>
 <20161111143935.GK3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKohponr4=8Bf9C1=_YEhsvDXm0t2vXyGOnrrEr6HaMKzVOcnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161114092252.GT3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161114092252.GT3117@twins.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 14-11-16, 10:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Any static prio value is wrong (static prio assignment requires system
> knowledge that the kernel doesn't and cannot have), 50 is what threaded
> IRQs default too as well IIRC, so it would at least be consistent with
> that.

Yes you are correct and I have found a better way of defining the
priority in this case using that code instead of magic figure 50.

MAX_USER_RT_PRIO/2 :)

-- 
viresh