[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201120092724.GB2653684@google.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:27:24 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
lenb@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
valentin.schneider@....com, ionela.voinescu@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation/scheduler/schedutil.txt
On Friday 20 Nov 2020 at 14:49:04 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This is unlikely to be an issue on systems where cpufreq policies are
> shared between multiple CPUs, because in those cases the policy
> utilization is computed as the maximum of the CPU utilization values
> over the whole policy and if that turns out to be low, reducing the
> frequency for the policy most likely is a good idea anyway.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this actually. We may be migrating the
task to a different policy altogether. And even if we migrate to another
CPU in the current policy, the task util_avg may be small just because
it was packed with other tasks on a rq, which means it may not increase
the util of the destination rq by much.
ISTR Douglas' EM-based schedutil boosting series was addressing that at
some point, I'll go have a look back at that discussion...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists