linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: util_est: fast ramp-up EWMA on utilization increases

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDK-KSVz6HSr185yEj2TzZrNRx5FG_pUpp0-rxHWsXurQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:57:52 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: util_est: fast ramp-up EWMA on utilization increases

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 16:52, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
> The energy aware schedutil patches remimded me this was still pending.
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > Hi Peter, Vincent,
> > is there anything different I can do on this?
>
> I think both Vincent and me are basically fine with the patch, it was
> the Changelog/explanation for it that sat uneasy.

I agree

>
> Specifically I think the 'confusion' around the PELT invariance stuff
> doesn't help.
>
> I think that if you present it simply as making util_est directly follow
> upward motion and only decay on downward -- and the rationale for it --
> then it should be fine.
>
>