Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1526628
| 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 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFVTr-18L-9@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> <sFVJL-15x-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:14:32PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 21/11/16 11:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > 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. > > > > Do you mean we might want to change the decay (make it different from > ramp-up) once for all, or maybe we make it tunable so that we can > address different power/perf requirements? So the limited decay would be the dominant factor in ramp-up time, leaving the regular PELT period the dominant factor for ramp-down. (Note that the decay limit would only be applied on the per-task signal, not the accumulated signal.) It could be an option, for some, to build the kernel with a PELT window of 16ms or so (half its current size), this of course means regenerating all the constants etc.. And this very much is a compile time thing. We could fairly easy; if this is so desired; make the PELT window size a CONFIG option (hidden by default). But like everything; patches should come with numbers justifying them etc.. > > Also, there was the idea of; once the above ideas have all been > > explored; tying the freq ram rate to the power curve. > > > > Yep. That's an interesting one to look at, but it might require some > time. Sure, just saying that we should resist knobs until all other avenues have been explored. Never start with a knob.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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