lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make use of DEADLINE utilization signal
On 05-Dec 16:24, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 05/12/17 15:09, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * Ideally we would like to set util_dl as min/guaranteed freq and
> > > + * util_cfs + util_dl as requested freq. However, cpufreq is not yet
> > > + * ready for such an interface. So, we only do the latter for now.
> > > + */
> >
> > Maybe I don't completely get the above comment, but to me it is not
> > really required.
> >
> > When you say that "util_dl" should be set to a min/guaranteed freq
> > are you not actually talking about a DL implementation detail?
> >
> > From the cpufreq standpoint instead, we should always set a capacity
> > which can accommodate util_dl + util_cfs.
>
> It's more for platforms which supports such combination of values for
> frequency requests (CPPC like, AFAIU). The idea being that util_dl is
> what the system has to always guarantee, but it could go up to the sum
> if feasible.

I see, you mean for systems where you can specify both values at the
same time, i.e.
- please give me util_dl...
- ... but if you have more beer, I would like util_dl + util_cfs

However, I'm not an expert, on those systems can we really set a
minimum guaranteed performance level?

I was more of the idea that the "minimum guaranteed" is something we
can only read from "firmware", while we can only ask for something
which is never "guaranteed".

> > We don't care about the meaning of util_dl and we should always assume
> > (by default) that the signal is properly updated by the scheduling
> > class... which unfortunately does not always happen for CFS.
> >

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-05 17:34    [W:0.061 / U:0.416 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site