[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180605142139.GG12193@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:21:39 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] track CPU utilization
On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:09:54 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:55:43 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 5 June 2018 at 15:52, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 05 Jun 2018 at 15:18:38 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > >> On 5 June 2018 at 15:12, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote:
> > >> I would say no because when one will decrease the other one will not
> > >> increase at the same pace and we will have some wrong behavior or
> > >> decision
> > >
> > > I think I get your point. Yes, sometimes, the slow-moving rt_avg can be
> > > off a little bit (which can be good or bad, depending in the case) if your
> > > RT task runs a lot with very changing behaviour. And again, I'm not
> > > fundamentally against the idea of having extra complexity for RT/IRQ PELT
> > > signals _if_ we have a use-case. But is there a real use-case where we
> > > really need all of that ? That's a true question, I honestly don't have
> > > the answer :-)
> >
> > The iperf test result is another example of the benefit
>
> The iperf test result ? The sysbench test you mean ?
Ah sorry I missed that one form the cover letter ... I'll look into that
then :-)
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists