Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1526580

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

From Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits
Date 2016-11-21 12:20 +0100
Message-ID <sFUNI-sG-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <sEnqN-4Pn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sFTHY-8fb-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <sFTRD-8lZ-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <sFUkF-8vE-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:18:00PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-11-16, 11:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Urgh...
> > 
> > 
> > So no tunables and rate limits here at all please.
> > 
> > During LPC we discussed the rampup and decay issues and decided that we
> > should very much first address them by playing with the PELT stuff.
> > Morton was going to play with capping the decay on the util signal. This
> > should greatly improve the ramp-up scenario and cure some other wobbles.
> > 
> > The decay can be set by changing the over-all pelt decay, if so desired.
> > 
> > Also, there was the idea of; once the above ideas have all been
> > explored; tying the freq ram rate to the power curve.
> > 
> > So NAK on everything tunable here.
> 
> Okay, as I told you on IRC, we already have a tunable: rate_limit_us for the
> schedutil governor which defines the minimum time before which the governor
> wouldn't try to update the frequency again. Perhaps 10-20 ms is the ideal value
> for that everyone is using.
> 
> So eventually that should also die and we should get inputs from PELT stuff ?

I think it should be replaced by a value provided by the driver. It
makes sense to have a rate-limit in so far as that it doesn't make sense
to try and program the hardware faster than it can actually change
frequencies and/or have a programming cost amortization. And this very
clearly is a driver specific thing.

It however doesn't make sense to me to fudge with this in order to
achieve ramp up/down differences.

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


Thread

[PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-17 06:30 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-21 11:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 11:20 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-21 11:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 12:20 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-21 12:40 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 12:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com> - 2016-11-21 13:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 13:30 +0100
          Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com> - 2016-11-21 15:00 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com> - 2016-11-21 15:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 15:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com> - 2016-11-21 16:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-11-22 10:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> - 2016-11-22 12:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> - 2016-11-21 16:00 +0100
              Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 16:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 16:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> - 2016-11-21 17:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition  rate limits Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-21 17:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> - 2016-11-21 22:00 +0100

csiph-web