From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D35C4646D for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 10:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 550C52159D for ; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 10:12:35 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 550C52159D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729025AbeHMMyF (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2018 08:54:05 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56458 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728055AbeHMMyF (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2018 08:54:05 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F417A9; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 03:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e110439-lin (e110439-lin.Emea.Arm.com [10.4.12.126]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED3363F5D0; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 03:12:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:12:21 +0100 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Vincent Guittot Cc: Juri Lelli , linux-kernel , "open list:THERMAL" , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , viresh kumar , Paul Turner , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , "Cc: Steve Muckle" , surenb@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping for RT tasks Message-ID: <20180813101221.GA2605@e110439-lin> References: <20180806163946.28380-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180806163946.28380-7-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20180807132630.GB3062@localhost.localdomain> <20180809153423.nsoepprhut3dv4u2@darkstar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Vincent! On 09-Aug 18:03, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On 07-Aug 15:26, Juri Lelli wrote: [...] > > > > + util_cfs = cpu_util_cfs(rq); > > > > + util_rt = cpu_util_rt(rq); > > > > + if (sched_feat(UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS)) { > > > > + util = 0; > > > > + if (util_cfs) > > > > + util += uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util_cfs); > > > > + if (util_rt) > > > > + util += uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util_rt); > > > > + } else { > > > > + util = cpu_util_cfs(rq); > > > > + util += cpu_util_rt(rq); > > > > + util = uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util); > > > > + } > > > > Regarding the two policies, do you have any comment? > > Does the policy for (sched_feat(UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS)== true) really > make sense as it is ? > I mean, uclamp_util doesn't make any difference between rt and cfs > tasks when clamping the utilization so why should be add twice the > returned value ? > IMHO, this policy would make sense if there were something like > uclamp_util_rt() and a uclamp_util_cfs() The idea for the UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS policy is to improve fairness on low-priority classese, especially when we have high RT utilization. Let say we have: util_rt = 40%, util_min=0% util_cfs = 10%, util_min=50% the two policies will select: UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS: util = uclamp(40) + uclamp(10) = 50 + 50 = 100% !UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS: util = uclamp(40 + 10) = uclmp(50) = 50% Which means that, despite the CPU's util_min will be set to 50% when CFS is running, these tasks will have almost no boost at all, since their bandwidth margin is eclipsed by RT tasks. > > We had an internal discussion and we found pro/cons for both... but The UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS policy is thus less energy efficiency but it should grant a better "isolation" in terms of what is the expected speed-up a task will get at run-time, independently from higher priority classes. Does that make sense? > > I'm not sure keeping the sched_feat is a good solution on the long > > run, i.e. mainline merge ;) This problem still stands... -- #include Patrick Bellasi