lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFCv3 PATCH 33/48] sched: Energy-aware wake-up task placement
Date
Quoting Peter Zijlstra (2015-03-26 03:41:50)
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:21:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > - what about other sched classes? I know that this is very premature,
> > but I can help but thinking that we'll need to do some sort of
> > aggregation of requests, and if we put triggers in very specialized
> > points we might lose some of the sched classes separation
>
> So for deadline we can do P state selection (as you're well aware) based
> on the requested utilization. Not sure what to do for fifo/rr though,
> they lack much useful information (as always).
>
> Now if we also look ahead to things like the ACPI CPPC stuff we'll see
> that CFS and DL place different requirements on the hints. Where CFS
> would like to hint a max perf (the hardware going slower due to the code
> consisting of mostly stalls is always fine from a best effort energy
> pov), the DL stuff would like to hint a min perf, seeing how it 'needs'
> to provide a QoS.
>
> So we either need to carry this information along in a 'generic' way
> between the various classes or put the hinting in every class.
>
> But yes, food for thought for sure.

I am a fan of putting the hints in every class. One idea I've been
considering is that each sched class could have a small, simple cpufreq
governor that expresses its constraints (max for cfs, min qos for dl)
and then the cpufreq core Does The Right Thing.

This would be a multi-governor approach, which requires some surgery to
cpufreq core code, but I like the modularity and maintainability of it
more than having one big super governor that has to satisfy every need.

Regards,
Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-27 18:41    [W:0.181 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site