[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180605150301.GK16081@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:03:01 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] track CPU utilization
On 05/06/18 16:18, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 08:08:58PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[...]
> > As you mentioned, scale_rt_capacity give the remaining capacity for
> > cfs and it will behave like cfs util_avg now that it uses PELT. So as
> > long as cfs util_avg < scale_rt_capacity(we probably need a margin)
> > we keep using dl bandwidth + cfs util_avg + rt util_avg for selecting
> > OPP because we have remaining spare capacity but if cfs util_avg ==
> > scale_rt_capacity, we make sure to use max OPP.
>
> Good point, when cfs-util < cfs-cap then there is idle time and the util
> number is 'right', when cfs-util == cfs-cap we're overcommitted and
> should go max.
>
> Since the util and cap values are aligned that should track nicely.
Yeah. Makes sense to me as well. :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists