[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180622153016.GA29031@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 16:30:17 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
Morten.Rasmussen@....com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
valentin.schneider@....com, patrick.bellasi@....com,
joel@...lfernandes.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/11] cpufreq/schedutil: use rt utilization tracking
On Friday 22 Jun 2018 at 17:22:58 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:37:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > That is true.. So we could limit the scaling to the case where there is
> > no idle time, something like:
> >
> > util = sg_cpu->util_cfs;
> >
> > cap_cfs = (1024 - (sg_cpu->util_rt + ...));
> > if (util == cap_cfs)
> > util = sg_cpu->max;
> >
>
> OK, it appears this is more or less what the patches do. And I think
> there's a small risk/hole with this where util ~= cap_cfs but very close
> due to some unaccounted time.
So Vincent suggested at some point to add a margin to avoid that issue
IIRC. FWIW, this is what the overutilized flag of EAS does. It basically
says, if there isn't enough idle time in the system (cfs_util is too close
to cap_cfs), don't bother looking at the util signals because they'll be
kinda wrong.
So what about something like, go to max freq if overutilized ? Or
something similar on a per cpufreq policy basis ?
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists