Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH RFC 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection
Date	2017-05-24 13:40 +0200
Message-ID	<tKCNY-1KT-19@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<tKdPz-N6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKoL1-8pv-45@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKAMa-tv-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <tKBoR-Xp-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:01:51PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > So I'm terribly confused...
> > > 
> > > By using the active bandwidth to select frequency we effectively
> > > reduce idle time (to 0 if we had infinite granular frequency steps
> > > and no margins).
> > > 
> > > So !RECLAIM works as expected. They get the time they reserved,
> > > since that was taken into account by active bandwidth.


> Well, I also admitted that I am almost completely ignorant about many
> people's requirements...
> 
> What I know is that there are some people using SCHED_DEADLINE to make
> sure that a task can make progress (executing with a "high priority")
> without consuming more than a specified fraction of CPU time... So,
> they for example schedule a CPU-hungry task with runtime=10ms and
> period=100ms to make sure that the task can execute every 100ms (giving
> the impression of a "fluid progress") without stealing more than 10% of
> CPU time to other tasks.
> 
> In this case, if the CPU frequency change the goal is still to
> "reserve" 10% of CPU time (not more, even if the CPU is slower) to the
> task. So, no runtime rescaling (or reclaiming) is required in this case.
> 
> 
> My proposal was that if a task is not interested in a fixed
> runtime / fraction of CPU time but wants to adapt the runtime when the
> CPU frequency scales, then it can select the RECLAIMING flag.

I think these people are doing it wrong :-)

Firstly, the runtime budget is a WCET. This very much means it is
subject to CPU frequency; after all, when the CPU runs slower, that same
amount of work takes longer. So being subject to cpufreq is the natural
state and should not require a special marker.

Secondly, if you want a steady progress of 10%, I don't see the problem
with giving them more at slower frequency, they get the 'same' amount of
'work' done without bothering other people.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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