[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201218153231.GB2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 16:32:31 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Cc: "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@...nel.org>,
'Giovanni Gherdovich' <ggherdovich@...e.com>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
'Linux PM' <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
'LKML' <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
'Viresh Kumar' <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
'Srinivas Pandruvada' <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
efault@....de, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] cpufreq: Allow drivers to receive more
information from the governor
On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 11:14:36AM -0800, Doug Smythies wrote:
> At least on my system, it is most evident for some of the pipe type tests,
> where the schedutil governor has never really known what to do. This patch
> set seems to add enough of a downward bias that this version of the schedutil
> governor now behaves much like the other versions
Yeah, pipe relies on task-task interaction, where one task waits on
another, and by boosting the producer the consumer can start earlier and
we get more cycles done etc.. Rather similar to IO-wait, where by
boosting the producer we gain throughput.
schedutil doesn't track anything useful here, but it is a semi common
pattern and it would be really good if we could somehow fix this.
We obviously have access to the task A wakes task B information, but I'm
not sure what to do with it, we're tried some things like this in the
past (although for slightly different reasons) and they've always ended
up being a mess :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists