[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtATWSWdk1dhnMvBqTZigtprv7d_0j0zpf48WfVDfMit5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:29:37 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
vschneid@...hat.com, bristot@...hat.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bsegall@...gle.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
andersson@...nel.org, agross@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, rafael@...nel.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Rework system pressure interface to the scheduler
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 09:21, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> I've been waiting for this feature, thanks!
>
>
> On 12/12/23 14:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Following the consolidation and cleanup of CPU capacity in [1], this serie
> > reworks how the scheduler gets the pressures on CPUs. We need to take into
> > account all pressures applied by cpufreq on the compute capacity of a CPU
> > for dozens of ms or more and not only cpufreq cooling device or HW
> > mitigiations. we split the pressure applied on CPU's capacity in 2 parts:
> > - one from cpufreq and freq_qos
> > - one from HW high freq mitigiation.
> >
> > The next step will be to add a dedicated interface for long standing
> > capping of the CPU capacity (i.e. for seconds or more) like the
> > scaling_max_freq of cpufreq sysfs. The latter is already taken into
> > account by this serie but as a temporary pressure which is not always the
> > best choice when we know that it will happen for seconds or more.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231211104855.558096-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org/
> >
> > Vincent Guittot (4):
> > cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the scheduler
> > sched: Take cpufreq feedback into account
> > thermal/cpufreq: Remove arch_update_thermal_pressure()
> > sched: Rename arch_update_thermal_pressure into
> > arch_update_hw_pressure
> >
> > arch/arm/include/asm/topology.h | 6 +--
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/topology.h | 6 +--
> > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 26 ++++-----
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 4 +-
> > drivers/thermal/cpufreq_cooling.c | 3 --
> > include/linux/arch_topology.h | 8 +--
> > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 10 ++++
> > include/linux/sched/topology.h | 8 +--
> > .../{thermal_pressure.h => hw_pressure.h} | 14 ++---
> > include/trace/events/sched.h | 2 +-
> > init/Kconfig | 12 ++---
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 8 +--
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 53 ++++++++++---------
> > kernel/sched/pelt.c | 18 +++----
> > kernel/sched/pelt.h | 16 +++---
> > kernel/sched/sched.h | 4 +-
> > 17 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)
> > rename include/trace/events/{thermal_pressure.h => hw_pressure.h} (55%)
> >
>
> I would like to test it, but something worries me. Why there is 0/5 in
> this subject and only 4 patches?
I removed a patch from the series but copied/pasted the cover letter
subject without noticing the /5 instead of /4
>
> Could you tell me your base branch that I can apply this, please?
It applies on top of tip/sched/core + [1]
and you can find it here:
https://git.linaro.org/people/vincent.guittot/kernel.git/log/?h=sched/system-pressure
>
> Regards,
> Lukasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists