[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230711175814.zfavcn7xn3ia5va4@airbuntu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 18:58:14 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com>
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, lukasz.luba@....com,
Dietmar.Eggemann@....com, dsmythies@...us.net,
yu.chen.surf@...il.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuidle: teo: Introduce util-awareness
Hi Kajetan
On 01/05/23 14:51, Kajetan Puchalski wrote:
[...]
> @@ -510,9 +598,11 @@ static int teo_enable_device(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> struct cpuidle_device *dev)
> {
> struct teo_cpu *cpu_data = per_cpu_ptr(&teo_cpus, dev->cpu);
> + unsigned long max_capacity = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(dev->cpu);
> int i;
>
> memset(cpu_data, 0, sizeof(*cpu_data));
> + cpu_data->util_threshold = max_capacity >> UTIL_THRESHOLD_SHIFT;
Given that utilization is invariant, why do we set the threshold based on
cpu capacity?
I'm not sure if this is a problem, but on little cores this threshold would be
too low. Given that util is invariant - I wondered if we need to have a single
threshold for all type of CPUs instead. Have you tried something like that
while developing the patch?
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists