On 21-12-17, 11:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:45:02PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 20-12-17, 16:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > The below makes more sense to me too; hmm?
> > >
> > > @@ -335,12 +335,11 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shar
> > >
> > > j_max = j_sg_cpu->max;
> > > j_util = sugov_aggregate_util(j_sg_cpu);
> > > + sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max);
>
> This should 'obviously' have been:
>
> sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &j_util, *j_max);
Actually it should be:
sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &j_util, &j_max);
and this is how it was in the commit I reviewed from your tree. But my query
still stands, what difference will it make ?
> > > if (j_util * max > j_max * util) {
> > > util = j_util;
> > > max = j_max;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - sugov_iowait_boost(j_sg_cpu, &util, &max);
--
viresh
