linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20230117163841.d5jv6ysqf5kmvvmh@airbuntu>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:38:41 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        vschneid@...hat.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lukasz.luba@....com, wvw@...gle.com,
        xuewen.yan94@...il.com, han.lin@...iatek.com,
        Jonathan.JMChen@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized

On 01/16/23 09:07, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:

[...]

> Not sure if people get what `performance requirements` mean here? I know
> we want to use `performance` rather `bandwidth hint` to describe what
> uclamp is. So shouldn't we use `utilization but also uclamp`?

We do have the uclamp doc now which explains this, no? I'm not keen on
utilization because it's an overloaded term. In the context of uclamp
- utilization _signal_ in the scheduler is used to indicate performance
requirements of a workload, no?

Using 'uclamp hint' if you found it really confusing, is fine by me. But I'd
rather steer away from 'bandwidth' or 'utilization' when describing uclamp and
its intention.

I like using performance requirements because it enforces what this hint
actually means.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef