[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180809093808.dkhf53a7gecv3djo@queper01-lin>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 10:38:09 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Cc: Steve Muckle" <smuckle@...gle.com>, adharmap@...cinc.com,
"Kannan, Saravana" <skannan@...cinc.com>, pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
currojerez@...eup.net, Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point
indicator
On Thursday 09 Aug 2018 at 11:30:57 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 at 14:26, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
> >
> > Energy-aware scheduling is only meant to be active while the system is
> > _not_ over-utilized. That is, there are spare cycles available to shift
> > tasks around based on their actual utilization to get a more
> > energy-efficient task distribution without depriving any tasks. When
> > above the tipping point task placement is done the traditional way based
> > on load_avg, spreading the tasks across as many cpus as possible based
> > on priority scaled load to preserve smp_nice. Below the tipping point we
> > want to use util_avg instead. We need to define a criteria for when we
> > make the switch.
> >
> > The util_avg for each cpu converges towards 100% (1024) regardless of
>
> remove the "(1024)" because util_avg converges to max cpu capacity
> which can be different from 1024
Good point, will be fixed in v6.
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists