Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization

From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
	viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	"Cc: Android Kernel" <kernel-team@android.com>,
	Alessio Balsini <alessio.balsini@santannapisa.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 09:14:55 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtD9KQTeeP0BNyhnqh=UXL0T_jK0PcvWWBjoyj0VC8TkRg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180604070438.GA2731@localhost.localdomain>

On 4 June 2018 at 09:04, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On 04/06/18 08:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 1 June 2018 at 19:45, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 03:53:07PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > IMO I feel its overkill to account dl_avg when we already have DL's running
>> > bandwidth we can use. I understand it may be too instanenous, but perhaps we
>>
>> We keep using dl bandwidth which is quite correct for dl needs but
>> doesn't reflect how it has disturbed other classes
>>
>> > can fix CFS's problems within CFS itself and not have to do this kind of
>> > extra external accounting ?
>
> I would also keep accounting for waiting time due to higher prio classes
> all inside CFS. My impression, when discussing it with you on IRC, was
> that we should be able to do that by not decaying cfs.util_avg when CFS
> is preempted (creating a new signal for it). Is not this enough?

We don't just want to not decay a signal but increase the signal to
reflect the amount of preemption
Then, we can't do that in a current signal. So you would like to add
another metrics in cfs_rq ?
The place doesn't really matter to be honest in cfs_rq or in dl_rq but
you will not prevent to add call in dl class to start/stop the
accounting of the preemption

>
> I feel we should try to keep cross-class accounting/interaction at a
> minimum.

accounting for cross class preemption can't be done without
cross-class accounting

Regards,
Vincent

>
> Thanks,
>
> - Juri