[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171204102325.5110-6-juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 11:23:22 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it,
claudio@...dence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it,
bristot@...hat.com, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, tkjos@...roid.com,
joelaf@...gle.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
alessio.balsini@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all CPUs when deciding next freq
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
No assumption can be made upon the rate at which frequency updates get
triggered, as there are scheduling policies (like SCHED_DEADLINE) which
don't trigger them so frequently.
Remove such assumption from the code, by always considering
SCHED_DEADLINE utilization signal as not stale.
Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
Cc: Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
---
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 16 ++++++++++------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index a3072f24dc16..b7a576c8dcaa 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -318,17 +318,21 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
s64 delta_ns;
/*
- * If the CPU utilization was last updated before the previous
- * frequency update and the time elapsed between the last update
- * of the CPU utilization and the last frequency update is long
- * enough, don't take the CPU into account as it probably is
- * idle now (and clear iowait_boost for it).
+ * If the CFS CPU utilization was last updated before the
+ * previous frequency update and the time elapsed between the
+ * last update of the CPU utilization and the last frequency
+ * update is long enough, reset iowait_boost and util_cfs, as
+ * they are now probably stale. However, still consider the
+ * CPU contribution if it has some DEADLINE utilization
+ * (util_dl).
*/
delta_ns = time - j_sg_cpu->last_update;
if (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC) {
j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost = 0;
j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost_pending = false;
- continue;
+ j_sg_cpu->util_cfs = 0;
+ if (j_sg_cpu->util_dl == 0)
+ continue;
}
if (j_sg_cpu->flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT)
return policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
--
2.14.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists