On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 03:42:10PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> But when I discussed this with Vincent, he suggested that it may not be
> at all as the scheduler (with the helped of "decayed") doesn't call into
> schedutil too often, i.e. at least 1 ms. And if the CPUs are stable enough
> no interruptions to the running task), we wouldn't reevaluate before the next
There are still the attach/detach callers to cfs_rq_util_change() that
kick in for fork/exit and migration.
But yes, barring those we shouldn't end up calling it at silly rates.