[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCumY3xFxLNNGVgdvpXnXkLMVpzNjm5h4=KGw=5kdHd+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:16:21 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette+renesas@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] sched/cpufreq: pass sched class into cpufreq_update_util
On 16 March 2016 at 09:53, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:29:59AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> I wonder if it's really worth passing per sched_class request to
>> sched_util ? sched_util is about selecting a frequency based on the
>> utilization of the CPU, it only needs a value that reflect the whole
>> utilization. Can't we sum (or whatever the formula we want to apply)
>> utilizations before calling cpufreq_update_util
>
> So I've thought the same; but I'm conflicted, its a shame to compute
> anything if the call then doesn't do anything with it.
yes, at least we shoud skip all that stuff (including adding a margin)
if no hook has been set in cpufreq_update_util.
I also see potential optimization of updating the value only if the
utilization has been decayed
>
> And keeping a structure of all the various numbers to pass in also has
> cost of yet another cacheline to touch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists