[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:50:33 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Amit Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Introduce thermal pressure
On 10/10/18 14:34, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 14:23, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/10/18 14:04, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > The problem was the same with RT, the cfs utilization was lower than
> > > reality because RT steals soem cycle to CFS
> > > So schedutil was selecting a lower frequency when cfs was running
> > > whereas the CPU was fully used.
> > > The same can happen with thermal:
> > > cap the max freq because of thermal
> > > the utilization with decrease.
> > > remove the cap
> > > the utilization is still low and you will select a low OPP because you
> > > don't take into account cycle stolen by thermal like with RT
> >
> > What if we scale frequency component considering the capped temporary
> > max?
>
> Do you mean using a kind of scale_thermal_capacity in accumulate_sum
> when computing utilization ?
Yeah, something like that I guess. So that we account for temporary
"fake" 1024..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists