Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Tue, 6 Sep 2022 07:49:28 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] sched/pelt: Introduce PELT multiplier |
| |
On Fri, 2 Sept 2022 at 09:54, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote: > > On 29/08/2022 12:13, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 at 12:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 10:08:13AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 07:54:50AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > >>>> From: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com> > > [...] > > >>> Hurmph... I'd almost go write you something like > >>> static_call()/static_branch() but for immediates. > >>> > >>> That said; given there's only like 3 options, perhaps a few > >>> static_branch() instances work just fine ? > >> > >> Also, I'm not at all sure about exposing that as an official sysctl. > > > > Me too, I would even make it a boot time parameter so we can remove > > Isn't a sched feature even less official than a boot parameter? > But AFAIK at least some of the Android folks want to change this during > runtime and they don't have debugfs mounted. > > > the new clock_task_mult clock and left shift clock_taslk or the delta > > before passing it to clock_pelt > > We still need rq_clock_task_mult(rq), i.e. `rq->clock_task_mult` in > _update_idle_rq_clock_pelt() though.
Why ? If the mult is defined at boot we just have to use "rq_clock_task(rq) << mult" instead of rq_clock_task(rq) when updating clock_pelt
| |