Re: [PATCH RFC 4/5] sched/fair: Correct obsolete comment about cpufreq_update_util

[Joel Fernandes]

Hi Viresh,

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You have prefixed most of the Cc'd names with "Cc: " somehow :)

Yeah :( What happened is I decided to play with using a text file to
input --cc-cmd for git send-patch. Turns out I was too careless with
forgetting to remove the "Cc: " prefix when I created the CC list.
Anyway lesson learnt :)

>
> On 28-10-17, 02:59, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Since the remote cpufreq callback work, the cpufreq_update_util call can happen
>> from remote CPUs. The comment about local CPUs is thus obsolete. Update it
>> accordingly.
>
> We normally keep the column width as 72 in commit logs instead of 80,
> as with 'git log' this is indented by a tab and then we would cross 80
> columns.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind and use 72 characters for future patches.

>
>> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 +---
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 4c06e52935d3..5c49fdb4c508 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -3018,9 +3018,7 @@ static inline void cfs_rq_util_change(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>               /*
>>                * There are a few boundary cases this might miss but it should
>>                * get called often enough that that should (hopefully) not be
>> -              * a real problem -- added to that it only calls on the local
>> -              * CPU, so if we enqueue remotely we'll miss an update, but
>> -              * the next tick/schedule should update.
>> +              * a real problem.
>>                *
>>                * It will not get called when we go idle, because the idle
>>                * thread is a different class (!fair), nor will the utilization
>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thank you!

- Joel