Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1649349
| From | Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals |
| Date | 2017-05-24 11:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tKAsP-ma-45@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tKdPz-N6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKdPC-N6-67@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKnOX-7FB-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKrzc-22T-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKyAG-7wq-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi, On 24/05/17 09:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:30:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 09:29:27 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > > To be able to treat utilization signals of different scheduling classes > > > > in different ways (e.g., CFS signal might be stale while DEADLINE signal > > > > is never stale by design) we need to split sugov_cpu::util signal in two: > > > > util_cfs and util_dl. > > > > > > > > This patch does that by also changing sugov_get_util() parameter list. > > > > After this change aggregation of the different signals has to be performed > > > > by sugov_get_util() users (so that they can decide what to do with the > > > > different signals). > > > > > > So what I don't see this patch doing; and I don't remember if cpufreq is > > > ready for this at all, is set the util_dl as min/guaranteed freq and > > > util_cfs+util_dl as requested freq. > > > > I'm totally unsure what you mean here. > > I was thinking of the CPPC/HWP stuff, where you can set different > frequencies with different levels of guarantees. > > We'd want to set util_dl as the minimum (guaranteed) performance, and > util_dl + util_cfs as the desired performance level. > > > cpufreq doesn't have a "guaranteed frequency" concept of any sort right now. > > I was afraid of that ;-) I think we want a comment in the code stating > that this is the desired goal though. Then once cpufreq is ready to deal > with it we can change it.. Sure, I can add that in next version. Thanks, - Juri
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-05-23 11:00 +0200
[PATCH RFC 1/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make use of DEADLINE utilization signal Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-05-23 11:00 +0200
[PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-05-23 11:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-23 21:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-05-24 11:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-23 21:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-05-24 01:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-24 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-05-24 11:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-23 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-24 00:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-05-24 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-24 11:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2017-05-24 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-24 13:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it> - 2017-05-24 12:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-05-24 13:40 +0200
csiph-web