From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755520AbdLTOsU (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:48:20 -0500 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:62348 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754664AbdLTOsP (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:48:15 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Patrick Bellasi , Viresh Kumar , Ingo Molnar , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com, tkjos@android.com, joelaf@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: <5156588.pkDhmtr2np@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20171220132826.kcu5zqkva5h6nmfk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20171220125546.GI19821@e110439-lin> <20171220132826.kcu5zqkva5h6nmfk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 2:28:26 PM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:55:46PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > On 20-Dec 09:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Didn't juri have patches to make DL do something sane? But yes, I think > > > those flags are part of the problem. > > > > He recently reposted them here: > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171204102325.5110-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com > > Yeah, just found them and actually munged them into my queue; did all > the modifications you suggested too. Lets see if it comes apart. Good, because I think that the Juri's patches should go in first. Then we'll see what's still missing. > > > > - From the utilization handler, we check runqueues of all three sched > > > > classes to see if they have some work pending (this can be done > > > > smartly by checking only RT first and skipping other checks if RT > > > > has some work). > > > > > > No that's wrong. DL should provide a minimum required based on existing > > > reservations, we can add the expected CFS average on top and request > > > that. > > > > > > And for RT all we need to know is if current is of that class, otherwise > > > we don't care. > > > > So, this: > > > > https://marc.info/?i=20171130114723.29210-3-patrick.bellasi%40arm.com > > Right, I was actually looking for those patches, but I'm searching > backwards and hit upon Juri's patches first. > > > was actually going in this direction, although still working on top of > > flags to not change the existing interface too much. > > > > IMO, the advantage of flags is that they are a sort-of "pro-active" > > approach, where the scheduler notify sensible events to schedutil. > > But keep adding flags seems to overkilling to me too. > > > > If we remove flags then we have to query the scheduler classes "on > > demand"... but, as Peter suggests, once we have DL bits Juri posted, > > the only issue if to know if an RT task is running. > > This the patch above can be just good enough, with no flags at all and > > with just a check for current being RT (or DL for the time being). > > Well, we still need flags for crap like IO-WAIT IIRC. That's sugov > internal state and not something the scheduler actually already knows. Not only sugov to be precise, but yes. Thanks, Rafael