[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180604101247.GB2731@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 12:12:47 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
Alessio Balsini <alessio.balsini@...tannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization
On 04/06/18 09:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 4 June 2018 at 09:04, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > On 04/06/18 08:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 1 June 2018 at 19:45, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 03:53:07PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> > IMO I feel its overkill to account dl_avg when we already have DL's running
> >> > bandwidth we can use. I understand it may be too instanenous, but perhaps we
> >>
> >> We keep using dl bandwidth which is quite correct for dl needs but
> >> doesn't reflect how it has disturbed other classes
> >>
> >> > can fix CFS's problems within CFS itself and not have to do this kind of
> >> > extra external accounting ?
> >
> > I would also keep accounting for waiting time due to higher prio classes
> > all inside CFS. My impression, when discussing it with you on IRC, was
> > that we should be able to do that by not decaying cfs.util_avg when CFS
> > is preempted (creating a new signal for it). Is not this enough?
>
> We don't just want to not decay a signal but increase the signal to
> reflect the amount of preemption
OK.
> Then, we can't do that in a current signal. So you would like to add
> another metrics in cfs_rq ?
Since it's CFS related, I'd say it should fit in CFS.
> The place doesn't really matter to be honest in cfs_rq or in dl_rq but
> you will not prevent to add call in dl class to start/stop the
> accounting of the preemption
>
> >
> > I feel we should try to keep cross-class accounting/interaction at a
> > minimum.
>
> accounting for cross class preemption can't be done without
> cross-class accounting
Mmm, can't we distinguish in, say, pick_next_task_fair() if prev was of
higher prio class and act accordingly?
Thanks,
- Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists