linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJWu+orMR4ATOhdyDm0PpqOgLhr6drnVNA97heafnfKc9g6+7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:46:42 -0700
From:   Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
        claudio@...dence.eu.com,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
        bristot@...hat.com, Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
[..]
>
>> If yes, then I don't think it was about having separate APIs, but just storing
>> util_cfs/dl separately.
>>
>> > -static void sugov_get_util(unsigned long *util, unsigned long *max)
>> > +static void sugov_get_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
>> >  {
>> >     struct rq *rq = this_rq();
>> > -   unsigned long dl_util = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
>> > -                           >> BW_SHIFT;
>> >
>> > -   *max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id());
>> > +   sg_cpu->max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id());
>> > +   sg_cpu->util_cfs = rq->cfs.avg.util_avg;
>> > +   sg_cpu->util_dl = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
>> > +                     >> BW_SHIFT;
>> > +}
>> >
>> > +static unsigned long sugov_aggregate_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
>>
>> As Joel already mentioned, I don't think we should create two separate routines
>> here.
>>
>
> Mmm, it makes retrieving of utilization in sugov_update_shared and
> aggregating values for the domain in sugov_next_freq_shared cleaner,
> IMHO.
>

I agree, thanks.

-Joel