mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xuewen.yan@unisoc.com,
	Lukasz.Luba@arm.com, Vincent.Donnefort@arm.com,
	dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, qais.yousef@arm.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
	qperret@qperret.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix negative energy delta in find_energy_efficient_cpu()
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 09:33:34 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c0c99cfd-cf3d-32a1-2088-21960abae8ad@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YILvUkgZXu4swVvj@google.com>

Hi Quentin,

I sent a v2 yesterday. This is just to answer your question:
> Not that I disagree with the approach, just being curious: do we know
> how much this is helping in practice to reduce the window by moving the
> compute_energy() calls down here?
I don't have any numbers. However, moving the computation of base_energy_pd

after looping over the CPUs of a performance domain allows to skip this 
computation

if no CPU is available in the performance domain. This should justify 
moving the

compute_energy() call.


Regards,

Pierre


      reply	other threads:[~2021-04-30  8:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-20 12:56 Pierre.Gondois
2021-04-20 17:25 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-04-22  9:44   ` Pierre Gondois
2021-04-23 15:48     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-04-23 16:01 ` Quentin Perret
2021-04-30  8:33   ` Pierre Gondois [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=c0c99cfd-cf3d-32a1-2088-21960abae8ad@arm.com \
    --to=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
    --cc=Lukasz.Luba@arm.com \
    --cc=Vincent.Donnefort@arm.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=qperret@qperret.net \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=xuewen.yan@unisoc.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®