Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

[Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>]

Hi,

On 24/05/17 09:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:30:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 09:29:27 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > To be able to treat utilization signals of different scheduling classes
> > > > in different ways (e.g., CFS signal might be stale while DEADLINE signal
> > > > is never stale by design) we need to split sugov_cpu::util signal in two:
> > > > util_cfs and util_dl.
> > > > 
> > > > This patch does that by also changing sugov_get_util() parameter list.
> > > > After this change aggregation of the different signals has to be performed
> > > > by sugov_get_util() users (so that they can decide what to do with the
> > > > different signals).
> > > 
> > > So what I don't see this patch doing; and I don't remember if cpufreq is
> > > ready for this at all, is set the util_dl as min/guaranteed freq and
> > > util_cfs+util_dl as requested freq.
> > 
> > I'm totally unsure what you mean here.
> 
> I was thinking of the CPPC/HWP stuff, where you can set different
> frequencies with different levels of guarantees.
> 
> We'd want to set util_dl as the minimum (guaranteed) performance, and
> util_dl + util_cfs as the desired performance level.
> 
> > cpufreq doesn't have a "guaranteed frequency" concept of any sort right now.
> 
> I was afraid of that ;-) I think we want a comment in the code stating
> that this is the desired goal though. Then once cpufreq is ready to deal
> with it we can change it..

Sure, I can add that in next version.

Thanks,

- Juri