[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:23:48 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Introduce thermal pressure
On 10/10/18 14:04, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> The problem was the same with RT, the cfs utilization was lower than
> reality because RT steals soem cycle to CFS
> So schedutil was selecting a lower frequency when cfs was running
> whereas the CPU was fully used.
> The same can happen with thermal:
> cap the max freq because of thermal
> the utilization with decrease.
> remove the cap
> the utilization is still low and you will select a low OPP because you
> don't take into account cycle stolen by thermal like with RT
What if we scale frequency component considering the capped temporary
max?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists