[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h8=Kh-xutPMf110UOrRfEQtjjOTneZaWoZLaYO=Bfm1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 22:02:26 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
qperret@...gle.com, Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/6] sched/cpufreq: Introduce sugov_cpu_ramp_boost
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 6:21 PM Douglas Raillard
<douglas.raillard@....com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/23/20 3:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 6:36 PM Douglas RAILLARD
> > <douglas.raillard@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Use the utilization signals dynamic to detect when the utilization of a
> >> set of tasks starts increasing because of a change in tasks' behavior.
> >> This allows detecting when spending extra power for faster frequency
> >> ramp up response would be beneficial to the reactivity of the system.
> >>
> >> This ramp boost is computed as the difference between util_avg and
> >> util_est_enqueued. This number somehow represents a lower bound of how
> >> much extra utilization this tasks is actually using, compared to our
> >> best current stable knowledge of it (which is util_est_enqueued).
> >>
> >> When the set of runnable tasks changes, the boost is disabled as the
> >> impact of blocked utilization on util_avg will make the delta with
> >> util_est_enqueued not very informative.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@....com>
> >> ---
> >> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> index 608963da4916..25a410a1ff6a 100644
> >> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> >> @@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
> >> unsigned long bw_dl;
> >> unsigned long max;
> >>
> >> + unsigned long ramp_boost;
> >> + unsigned long util_est_enqueued;
> >> + unsigned long util_avg;
> >> +
> >> /* The field below is for single-CPU policies only: */
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> >> unsigned long saved_idle_calls;
> >> @@ -183,6 +187,42 @@ static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static unsigned long sugov_cpu_ramp_boost(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> >> +{
> >> + return READ_ONCE(sg_cpu->ramp_boost);
> >> +}
> >
> > Where exactly is this function used?
>
> In the next commit where the boost value is actually used to do
> something. The function is introduced here to keep the
> WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE pair together.
But ramp_boost itself is not really used in this patch too AFAICS.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists