[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26961140.kuCyhvbGLP@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:25:02 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...eaurora.org,
skannan@...eaurora.org, pkondeti@...eaurora.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, edubezval@...il.com,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, currojerez@...eup.net,
javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/14] sched/cpufreq: Refactor the utilization aggregation method
On Monday, September 10, 2018 12:07:21 PM CEST Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 10 Sep 2018 at 11:53:58 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, August 20, 2018 11:44:16 AM CEST Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > Schedutil aggregates the PELT signals of CFS, RT, DL and IRQ in order
> > > to decide which frequency to request. Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS)
> > > needs to be able to predict those requests to assess the energy impact
> > > of scheduling decisions. However, the PELT signals aggregation is only
> > > done in schedutil for now, hence making it hard to synchronize it with
> > > EAS.
> > >
> > > To address this issue, introduce schedutil_freq_util() to perform the
> > > aforementioned aggregation and make it available to other parts of the
> > > scheduler. Since frequency selection and energy estimation still need
> > > to deal with RT and DL signals slightly differently, schedutil_freq_util()
> > > is called with a different 'type' parameter in those two contexts, and
> > > returns an aggregated utilization signal accordingly.
> >
> > This is complementary to patch [02/14] IMO.
> >
> > schedutil_freq_util() and map_util_freq() introduced by that patch should
> > always be used together as they are two parts of one algorithm in my view.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Would it be possible to make that clearer?
>
> I could squash the two at the beginning of the series in a preparatory
> patch that refactors schedutil for EAS all in one go, with a clear
> mention of what we intend to do (make EAS depend on sugov) in the commit
> message.
>
> Would that work ?
I think so.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists