From: Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, quentin.perret@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] PM: Introduce em_pd_get_higher_freq()
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 14:06:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <046bfab7-bf28-bbfe-2bff-09881d537fb1@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190516124200.opxczohjelhvrzmo@e110439-lin>
Hi Patrick,
On 5/16/19 1:42 PM, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 08-May 18:42, douglas.raillard@arm.com wrote:
>> From: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
>>
>> em_pd_get_higher_freq() returns a frequency greater or equal to the
>> provided one while taking into account a given cost margin. It also
>> skips inefficient OPPs that have a higher cost than another one with a
>> higher frequency.
>
> It's worth to add a small description and definition of what we mean by
> "OPP efficiency". Despite being just an RFC, it could help to better
> understand what we are after.
Right, here efficiency=capacity/power.
>
> [...]
>
>> +/** + * em_pd_get_higher_freq() - Get the highest frequency that
>> does not exceed the
>> + * given cost margin compared to min_freq
>> + * @pd : performance domain for which this must be done
>> + * @min_freq : minimum frequency to return
>> + * @cost_margin : allowed margin compared to min_freq, as a per-1024 value.
> ^^^^^^^^
> here...
>
>> + *
>> + * Return: the chosen frequency, guaranteed to be at least as high as min_freq.
>> + */
>> +static inline unsigned long em_pd_get_higher_freq(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
>> + unsigned long min_freq, unsigned long cost_margin)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long max_cost = 0;
>> + struct em_cap_state *cs;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!pd)
>> + return min_freq;
>> +
>> + /* Compute the maximum allowed cost */
>> + for (i = 0; i < pd->nr_cap_states; i++) {
>> + cs = &pd->table[i];
>> + if (cs->frequency >= min_freq) {
>> + max_cost = cs->cost + (cs->cost * cost_margin) / 1024;
> ^^^^
> ... end here we should probably better use SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
> instead of hard-coding in values, isn't it?
"cs->cost*cost_margin/1024" is not a capacity, it's a cost as defined here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/energy_model.h#L17
Actually, it's in milliwatts, but it's not better the better way to look at
it to understand it IMHO.
The margin is expressed as a "per-1024" value just like we use percents'
in everyday life, so it has no unit. If we want to avoid hard-coded values
here, I can introduce an ENERGY_COST_MARGIN_SCALE macro.
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>
> [...]
>
> Best,
> Patrick
Thanks,
Douglas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-16 13:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-08 17:42 [RFC PATCH 0/7] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] PM: Introduce em_pd_get_higher_freq() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-16 12:42 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 12:42 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:22 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 13:22 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-19 16:08 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-06-20 13:04 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21 10:17 ` Quentin Perret
2019-06-21 10:22 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:06 ` Douglas Raillard [this message]
2019-05-16 13:06 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] sched/cpufreq: Attach perf domain to sugov policy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] sched/cpufreq: Hook em_pd_get_higher_power() into get_next_freq() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] sched/cpufreq: Move up sugov_cpu_is_busy() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] sched/cpufreq: sugov_cpu_is_busy for shared policy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] sched/cpufreq: Improve sugov_cpu_is_busy accuracy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-16 12:55 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 12:55 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-19 16:19 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-06-20 11:05 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-08 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] sched/cpufreq: Boost schedutil frequency ramp up douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-13 7:12 ` [RFC PATCH 0/7] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware Viresh Kumar
2019-05-13 7:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-05-13 13:52 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-13 13:52 ` Douglas Raillard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=046bfab7-bf28-bbfe-2bff-09881d537fb1@arm.com \
--to=douglas.raillard@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).